No s*** Sherlock?!

I think it's a reasonable assumption that by now the Wire legal team know when they should/should not appeal.

That said, the MRP's definition of frivolous seems to be more than a little elastic. Earlier in the season Matty Lees appealed TWICE against the same charge. Both times his appeal was rejected. You would think the second appeal was the dictionary definition of frivolous. Unless, of course, some new evidence had come to light - perhaps Uncle Eamon had received a copy of the Zapruder film shot from the grassy knoll (or might that be the grubby Knowles) - proving the existence of a second shooter?

And before you accuse me of sour grapes, I'm actually glad George had his suspension bumped up - I wish it was three matches - it was the mid-season international against France that started his decline in form (imo).

It would appear not. Unless we hear what they've based it on, it's hard to say.

Can't get my head round grabbing someone's shirt to help them up which is a 4 match ban and a swinging arm to someone's face which is a 2 match ban..then on local news last night we had Keith senior talking about concussion in sport and the need to look after players..well let's start increasing bans for cheap dirty shots like matautias ...

I note you chose not to address my comments on Lees' double appeal. 'Nuff said.

I await another long winded reply that will lose my attention during the initial sentence.

Bottom line looks to be, you’re ok to knock them down, your not ok to help them up.

Could be a double bluff by Cull.
Plant loads of hard done too judiciaries on us, banking up a catalogue of heavy penalties, until wire really do need his compassion to get us off with one.

Or perhaps he’s just teaching us a hard lesson, so we finally get it that success stems from consistent good discipline.

What is there to address? Without knowing what was discussed during those appeals, it's difficult to confirm whether it was frivolous or not. Other clubs have also had two appeals rejected and not been judged frivolous, so it's not Saints getting preferential treatment. Warrington could still appeal this appeal and get the extra game taken off, if they can find a reason that isn't frivolous.

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/discipli ... cle-83477/

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/discipli ... cle-83477/

Williams appealing again on Tuesday.

Williams using England games to serve his bans so he'll be available for Warrington! Disgraceful!*

Anyone would think only Wigan have used the reserves and friendlies route to serving bans. You've done it yourselves enough times.

I agree with the last part though. The RFL and it's associated committees are dab hands at shooting themselves in the foot.




*We can all play that game.

Not sure he was being critical of Wigan, more critical of the system...

Warrington have used the system at least twice this year, I didn't agree with it then and didn't agree with it now Wigan have used it.

Bans given in first team games should only be used against first team matches - internationals I'm a little less sure on I guess there would need to be consensus with the NRL / Aus / NZ in this regard and where Williams was a certain starter for England, how would a ban for Makinson sit? Probably in the England squad but not a guaranteed starter with Johnstone & Young around.

I understand that mate but it's funny that everyone is up in arms and using the Wigan example when they could just as easily use an example from their own club. The way it's panned out in the media you'd think it was Wigan taking an unfair advantage when every team uses the same "loophole".

I agree with what you're saying though. It does seem a convoluted way of doing things. However, there would be unfairness whichever way you did it. Hill, for example, has played in the reserves plenty this season and could quite easily have played in the final so serving his ban there was more than justified.

You'd also have instances where players were unable to play in the reserves to regain fitness if they still had outstanding bans in that competition. Effectively they'd be serving a double ban as they'd have to serve their reserves ban which would delay their return to the first team, even if they hadn't been banned in that comp.

There's all sorts of scenarios where it would still be an unfair way to do it. I've also seen a suggestion that the player serves their ban in the competition they received it in but how would that work for the Challenge Cup? Players could effectively be banned from the competition for years if they received a multiple game ban!

Ultimately it's a flawed system and I agree it probably needs refining. However, as all teams get the same dispensation I'm a bit unsure as to why the outcry is so great. Unless, as I said earlier, it's because Wigan used it. I don't know for sure, but it seems strange that no one complained when Warrington or Hull or Castleford etc used it earlier in the season.

well done on missing the point.