I hope for their sake they haven’t; it would be a huge waste of their time, and an excellent way to have Vaughans ban extended on frivolous appeal. Comparability is not a defence (“you can’t convict me for murder because look at all these murders which have gone unpunished”).

Given it went straight to tribunal, any successful appeal would need to show error in either the charge, the grading or the process. I’m not sure the grounds for the grading in this circumstance (if it were a high tackle, you would need to evident it was careless rather than reckless for example) and the charge unfortunately seems pretty iron clad (I don’t think anyone denies he did do it) which probably means the only recourse is if they didn’t follow their own processes at the tribunal (Saints recently tried this on one of Lees’ bans … it did not go well).

It's what saints would do, they got Knowles off a ban for the grand final in a season where I seem to remember every other appeal being deemed frivolous and resulting in a longer ban.

You'd be treated fine I guess. I think when it happened to us a lot said it was a farce and overly harsh. A red card and a three game ban for a brief tug on the shirt of a player. A player who in that incident was blatantly faking an injury to con a penalty. I think I moaned about that aspect of it and the need to cut that out of the game a lot more than the ban itself. But we'd also understand that the rule needs to be there, a player in that situation could have a serious injury.

I hope you are successful in the appeal, I really do. It's good to have more fans of the sport realising just how damaging the MRP has been for the last 12 months with their obsession for finding things to ban players for. Another example of their overly harsh ban hammer being overturned at an appeal would be good, it might make them consider changing course or changing personnel. It might engage the RL press as well, who are all aghast at this one, yet had no issues at all with the previous 12 months of ridiculous charges, because of who those bans were falling on.

Interesting, would be a nice gesture and you don't really ever see those kind of things in RL. What would his statement contain though? "I wasn't injured, I was just trying to slow the game down so we won?". I think they knew that already. The issue is with the potential for injury, not the reality of it.

The only thing that could get him off now is if Matautia says he made it known to Vaughan verbally he wasn't injured, and was just taking the Mickey.

Imagine the reaction on redvee if he gets let off with the ban..could do with a giggle

..and then scores the winner in the play-offs against them.....they'd end up hounding Matautia out of the third world.

He can just say hey mate give me a pull up I’m knackered.

"hey mate, help me up Vaughny I'm f**ked"

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... -revealed/

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... -revealed/

Reading that he was going to be guilty no matter what was said, their minds already made up before he entered the room.

Knowles was cleared of that because of the contradictory wording of the charge. As trivial as this one is there are no grounds for appealing and i don't see how the RFL could let it go after other players have been banned for it ( that being said the mrp and rfl couldn't organise a up in a brewery,so anything could happen )

So what you are saying is because other players have been banned for said offence that they have to ban him, if only that applied in the law courts the prisons would be full. Not every offence is the same hence some latitude to how sentences are applied but seems the RFL one rule fits all. So eliminating common sense approach.

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/confirme ... ban-82305/

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/confirme ... ban-82305/

Paragraph in there talking about common sense which sadly the RFL lack.