Players don't take any notice of these boards..

But surely intent is very hard to prove and I see that's the only difference between the Grade C and D.

I agree but not sure if you can bargain with the RFL and offer to plead to a lesser offence that the one you have been charged (unlike criminal case defence and the CPS for example).

Anyway we should get the full notes here shortly. [urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=744[/url

Maybe they were given the nod to plead guilty and get five, plead not guilty and get six on a rejected appeal?

To be honest, he probably knew he was up for it having, less than a year ago, pleading guilty to 06/04/08 Law: 15.1(b) Detail: Reckless about outcome Grade:C

PS - James Lowes does respresent the player accoring to the notes.

Doubt it. He was charged as Grade D which carries the tariff of 3-5 match ban, he got the maximum they could give him for that offence.

You would have thought that pleading guilty results in a lesser punishment than pleading not guilty but then being found guilty (isn't that roughly how it works in the courts?). Perhaps their rational was to plead guilty and get less than the maximum (4 or maybe even 3 games) but their policy backfired.

3-5 is the normal punishment for this offence. If a players past record is bad, then the committee are guided to increase the ban length.

Wasnt the last person that happened to sonny nickel years ago,didnt he get something like 6 matches,appealed then ended up with 8..





didnt he use them up in A team games as well??

Good old RFL sreknaw