FORUMS > Wigan Warriors > Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE |
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 5482 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
29557_1715786245.png :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_29557.png |
|
| Quote: NickyKiss "As I said, you make a lot of good points and call a spade a spade all you like but you don't know the bloke you're calling a scrubber from a council house and at that stage, the good points become less effective (I actually do know people who know that guy and by all accounts he's a thoroughly decent chap and he loves rugby league, so he's ok by me). The game is portrayed as almost amateur at times, I agree with that and IMG need to start earning their position within the game and work on that perception. There will always be room for a romantic tale though and you can't just brush out the games roots in working class, Northern towns. It's a balancing act and one we need to work on. The players should be superstars but outside of Rugby league towns, nobody knows them from Adam.'"
He's a lifelong Leigh supporter and even has pieces of Hilton Park on display in his garden.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Academy Player | 2193 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2022 | 2 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: The Reaper "I don’t think that’s right lol, unless I’m getting mixed up with the other time it happened to Leeds but I only remember reading the Martin minutes. It explained why the appeal was deemed as frivolous.
They can’t just decide an appeal is frivolous based on “this was a fair ban” because A) that’s a completely subjective line that can’t be enforced in any kind of procedural manner and B) they can’t give a punishment for appealing any ban, as that would invite legal repercussions especially with fines involved
You have to have an appeals procedure in these things, and clubs/players have to be able to use them without fear of repercussions. As long as you are appealing an aspect of the charge (IE, guilt or grading) then you will never get deemed it to be a frivolous appeal. You can’t appeal just to try and get them to reduce the ban as that can’t be done if the grading and guilt are correct.'"
I wasn’t saying that there shouldn’t be an appeals process. What I was saying was that the version of frivolity you provided us with was an interpretation not the actual rule. Unless you can actually quote the rule we are all guessing when it should be applied.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Academy Player | 2193 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2022 | 2 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: The Reaper "To be fair, the MRP weren’t dishing out bans to anything that moved at the time either, so there was much less of this circus.'"
But we are subject to the same rules and we have not bleated about the process/system.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Academy Player | 2193 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2022 | 2 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: The Yellow Giraffe "The only part of your post I don't particularly agree with is the bit about Wellens being a hypocrite and in any way embarrassing. He called out Asiata for what is clearly a dangerous tackle technique. You're not honestly saying the Lees tackle on Greenwood was even comparable in terms of how dangerous it is are you?
If he had been asked about the Bell tackle on Bentley and he tried to defend/justify it then I agree he would be a massive hypocrite. As it happened, the question was surprisingly never put to him (genuinely can't believe no journo had the balls) and he therefore said nothing. He isn't going to voluntarily come out and start talking about his own player is he?
Like I said, I don't disagree with your post about our discipline in general earlier in the year and why have we received the most bans. We've had some idiotic moments from Knowles, Matautia, Sironen and Bell this season and I have very little sympathy with most of the charges and bans. The Lees one this weekend just gone I have some sympathy with as it was a genuine attempt at what most of us would class as a good hit. Under the current rules, if they see evidence of head contact I can see why he was banned and said a couple of days ago I have no issue with that.
But to suggest Wellens is a hypocrite for calling out a potentially career/season-ending technique and then appealing a ban for a marginal/debatable high tackle makes no sense to me. The two things couldn't be more different.'"
I like Wellens but his public comments about Asiata are uncalled for. If he wishes to raise Asiata’s tackling technique as an issue he should have taken it through the appropriate channels. That part of the game should not be played out in the media. From what I can gather, Asiata’s tackling technique is not breaking the rules of the game (although I have to say I don’t like it) and consequently Wellens should be asking the RFL to look at the rules not pillorying the Leigh player.
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 5482 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
29557_1715786245.png :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_29557.png |
|
| Further to the above from Saint's own press release:
The Club’s then lodged an appeal on Wednesday night which was based on the fact that we believe the Operational Rules Tribunal made an error of law in its decision or failed to act fairly in a procedural sense.
So definitely a technicality.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Fringe Player | 1200 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2022 | 3 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: Phuzzy "Further to the above from Saint's own press release
I've quoted exactly the same earlier. See my comments in relation to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 2984 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2010 | 15 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Going round in circles now, let's just all agree this Saints team is bunch of head hunting grubs who deserve every ban they get
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 5482 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
29557_1715786245.png :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_29557.png |
|
| Quote: Stu M "I've quoted exactly the same earlier. See my comments in relation to it.'"
Your post:
NB I've just re-read the official club statement. The actual words were "we believe the Operational Rules Tribunal made an error of law in its decision or failed to act fairly in a procedural sense"
Thats quite vague and open to interpretation. It could be challenging the grading or challenging the guilt. It could be trying to exploit a loophole but we don't know. Thats my point but please don't assume.
It absolutely is NOT open to interpretation. The appeal can only be appealed on a technicality, not on the guilt of the player which has already been determined.
To put it in the bluntest terms possible to avoid any further fudging of the facts:
You are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 422 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2014 | 10 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
72483_1397997052.jpg [b:90hulqic][color=#BF0040:90hulqic]The only reason they look up to you is because they chose to kneel.[/color:90hulqic][/b:90hulqic]:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_72483.jpg |
|
|
Quote: Zig "I wasn’t saying that there shouldn’t be an appeals process. What I was saying was that the version of frivolity you provided us with was an interpretation not the actual rule. Unless you can actually quote the rule we are all guessing when it should be applied.'"
As far as the RFL/tribunals explaining how they’ve come to the decision on a frivolous appeal, this is the only thing I can find which is what I was referencing:
https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ ... al-3835355
However, having just scoured through the RFL rules on the disciplinary system, it seems that they don’t really define what makes a frivolous appeal other than that it’s deemed unreasonable or without basis
https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... 202023.pdf
Which is part of the problem with the RFL in general. Everything seems open to interpretation and they themselves never interoperate things the same way twice!
|
|
Quote: Zig "I wasn’t saying that there shouldn’t be an appeals process. What I was saying was that the version of frivolity you provided us with was an interpretation not the actual rule. Unless you can actually quote the rule we are all guessing when it should be applied.'"
As far as the RFL/tribunals explaining how they’ve come to the decision on a frivolous appeal, this is the only thing I can find which is what I was referencing:
https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ ... al-3835355
However, having just scoured through the RFL rules on the disciplinary system, it seems that they don’t really define what makes a frivolous appeal other than that it’s deemed unreasonable or without basis
https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... 202023.pdf
Which is part of the problem with the RFL in general. Everything seems open to interpretation and they themselves never interoperate things the same way twice!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 4470 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2013 | 12 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
69704_1656949802.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_69704.jpg |
|
| Quote: The Reaper "However, having just scoured through the RFL rules on the disciplinary system, it seems that they don’t really define what makes a frivolous appeal other than that it’s deemed unreasonable or without basis
Bit like the Saints appeals then
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Fringe Player | 1200 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2022 | 3 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: Phuzzy "Your post
I'm glad you've used some of your post in capital letters. I would've been unable to read it without that so thanks.
The below is an actual lift from the RFL's 578 pages Operational Rules Document
D2:63 The only grounds for appeal are that the Operational Rules Tribunal
i) came to a decision to which no reasonable body could have come, or
ii) made an error of law in reaching its decision or
iii) failed to act fairly in a procedural sense or
iv) the sanction imposed was so excessive or lenient (in the case of the Compliance Manager) as to be unreasonable.
So tell me...
How does point 4 relate to a technicality? Surely that is to do with grading. There is nothing in the policy that differentiates between this and an appeal of an appeal.
I sincerely hope that you don't manage people in your job because if you communicate with them how you do on here then I really do feel sorry for them. You're unbelievably condescending.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 5482 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
29557_1715786245.png :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_29557.png |
|
| Quote: Stu M "I'm glad you've used some of your post in capital letters. I would've been unable to read it without that so thanks.
The below is an actual lift from the RFL's 578 pages Operational Rules Document
D2I sincerely hope that you don't manage people in your job because if you communicate with them how you do on here then I really do feel sorry for them. You're unbelievably condescending.'"
But you're not? I suggest you re-read your own post. The bits in bold are particularly condescending.As for the capital letters; it's an established way to portray emphasis. Sorry if it offends you.
Because the wording of "so excessive or lenient" clearly relates to incorrect procedure. That is not a determination of guilt or grading as you claim in the original post. More importantly, unless you think that 2 games was "excessively severe", then clearly Saints didn't challenge the appeal on that basis, so your assertion is still completely wrong!
To be honest, Stu, I come across as condescending because I've spent the last half dozen or so posts explaining things that I shouldn't need to. Your assertion that "it was open to interpretation and could relate to guilt or grading" (sic) is just made up. It didn't. It really is that simple. It's as clear as it could possibly be and your posts are literally highlighting this.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Fringe Player | 1200 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2022 | 3 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: Phuzzy "But you're not? I suggest you re-read you opening sentence. As for the capital letters; it's an established way to portray emphasis. Sorry if it offends you.
Because the wording of "so excessive or lenient" clearly relates to incorrect procedure. That is not a determination of guilt or grading as you claim in the original post. More importantly, unless you think that 2 games was "excessively severe", then clearly Saints didn't challenge the appeal on that basis, so your assertion is still completely wrong!
To be honest, Stu, I come across as condescending because I've spent the last half dozen or so posts explaining things that I shouldn't need to. Your assertion that "it was open to interpretation and could relate to guilt or grading" (sic) is just made up. It didn't. It really is that simple. It's as clear as it could possibly be and your posts are literally highlighting this.'"
Why? If Saints felt that the grading was incorrect or he should not have been charged at all then surely that negates what you are saying? In that instance, 2 games is then excessive. Why are you so adamant that you are correct when I have presented you with the policy? You weren't part of the appeal process so quite why you are so sure they have appealed a technicality I have no idea.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 5482 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
29557_1715786245.png :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_29557.png |
|
| Because we're talking about the appeal of the appeal! There is no place for guilt or grading to be challenged in the 2nd appeal. For point 4 to apply the ban would have to be "so excessive" when set against the charge (head high tackle) that has already been determined. 2 games doesn't fall into that category. It doesn't matter whether Saints believe he was guilty or not. The option to challenge that was met in the 1st appeal. It has no bearing on whether the punishment would be considered excessive or not.
Saints themselves have said that the 2nd appeal was against procedure and point of law. Why are you even arguing this?
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 422 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2014 | 10 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
72483_1397997052.jpg [b:90hulqic][color=#BF0040:90hulqic]The only reason they look up to you is because they chose to kneel.[/color:90hulqic][/b:90hulqic]:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_72483.jpg |
|
| Quote: Egg Chasing "Bit like the Saints appeals then'"
Evidently not.
|
|
|
|
|
|