https://www.rugby-league.com/article/35 ... C-tribunal

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/35 ... C-tribunal

He didn't make it up
He did say something, they accepted he didn't say it to the ref but another player.

So the ref made a mistake and we got a man in the bin for it?

Or the ref thought that he did say it to him, the RFL agrees (surprise surprise) and an independent tribunal called out the BS?

Yes

No

Yes & NO

I know your currently on a ref bashing exercise and i've made my opinion clear that I deffo don't agree with a lot orienteering done, but it's not a conspiracy

Possibly, but if it isn't a conspiracy - then it's incompetence isn't it?

Not necessarily asking you on this one, more just throwing it out there - why did it need to go appeal? It just smacks of the RFL backing refs to the hilt, regardless of who gets hit in the cross fire. JB misses a game, we don't get to see him play. All obviously not as important as making it seem like the ref didn't get it wrong.

FWIW, even if JB did say it to the ref. It's not worth 16k in the stands + how ever many others on TV, having to watch a diminished spectacle because of a few choice words.

Who on earth do you think "the RFL" are? It may suit your agenda to anonymise them but the match review panel aren't some faceless unknowns.

All the same and it doesn't really matter what they are called. It's a cartel where they all close ranks.

I think the problem is you don't know how the process works.

Quite possibly. I'm not doing a Ruddy Duck here and saying my way is the only way...

Feel free to talk me through it as the way this one looks to the 'uneducated', it doesn't paint the process in a good light. Two varying points of argument and the match review panel back their own man. An independent tribunal then review it and find JB not guilty.

One of the main points behind the charging process is for players to accept the grading and charge.
In this instance (and bear in mind its different than a tackle were they can see for themselves what happened ) they will have i assume listened to the refs mic etc and said 1 game which i wouldn't have argued with.
But if a player disputes and can provide evidence to the contrary then the disciplinary are free to review.
Obviously wigan/Bateman have provided evidence of some sort and the disciplinary have accepted that explanation

Edit
Bateman can't give his explanation before he's charged, so they haven't looked at both sides of the story and then believed the ref to then only change their minds.

Thanks & apologise if I'm being slow, but basically what you're saying is that it goes off what the ref says and the players don't get to put their side, or evidence across before an initial decision is made?

That seems like, at best, shaky ground and at worst a perfect opportunity to sweep things under the carpet, especially in situations like this. The mic picks up the wording, but there's no proof to say who it's aimed at, so they charge him based off the account of the ref.