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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

Evidently not.

Well that's interesting because having just spoken to my mate at Wigan (you know exactly who he is because I've told you previously) then he has confirmed that you can challenge the original grading still. Given he used to go with the Wigan players as their representative then its fair to say he knows more than you or I.

So yes whilst you may be correct in that on THIS occasion (capital letters used for emphasis) Saints appealed on a technicality then the fact that you have spent all afternoon categorically telling me that a second appeal can only be on a technicality is clearly incorrect.

To put it in the bluntest terms possible to avoid any further fudging of the facts:

You are wrong.

I've not. I've spent all day arguing with Phuzzy. I've not got the energy to look for frivolity rules

I think what we've established from all of this is that Matty Lees was rightly banned for contact to the head and Saints have tried everything to get him off with it

Couldnt have said it better myself,there you go,end of.