How on earth do the MRP make a decision, uphold it on appeal and then cave in at a 2nd appeal?

Surely if ever an appeal was going to be regarded as frivolous it would be appealing an already upheld appeal.

Can't give the link as its on twitter, but Richard Silverwood (one of the better refs) has come out and said its a disgrace.
I quote " Absolute shambles. No wonder the game is on its ar*e,"
Well said RS.

In a microcosm we see exactly what’s holding back Rugby League in this country and also why there’s little hope that it will recover from the recession it’s in. IMG or not!

Sts appeal is predictable but morally abhorrent, it says we will ignore the conduct of our player because we want to play him the next match. It also says we will put our welfare above that of the game no matter how amateurish and small it makes the the whole sport look.

The Governing Body, the RFL looks weak and perhaps corrupt in the face of one of the sports big clubs. No surprise there, no matter how they try to rationalise and explain their many illogical decisions that favour the big clubs.

The truth is that the powerful clubs run the game for their benefit often at the expense of the integrity of the sport, the smaller clubs and the health of the lower divisions. Once or twice is perhaps sustainable or can be absorbed even by a weak sport like Rugby League but many many cases, not just disciplinery matters, over decades has brought the sport to its knees.

Can the panel be cited for bringing the game into disrepute?

Although many people point the finger at clubs like Trinity for holding the game back, there is no doubt whatsoever that it's the big 5 clubs that control the sport and they can pretty much do what the hell they want, knowing that when push comes to shove, they will get their own way.
This decision is just the latest example of the RFL buckling or, not being up to the task.
Can you imagine this sort of thing in Union ??
The big 4 having "better advice" than the governing body should NEVER be possible.
Once again RL is a laughingstock.

Regards this. Tanginoa was to appeal his ban but the panel couldn’t hear it until the following week (he had to serve 1 before even heard). Yet with saints they have just had 2 appeals held within a week… it’s just double standards.

I think this is a disgusting decision and shows incompetence of the highest order. Basically the panel say he has flexed the arm but because he’s not injured have written off the action… truly ridiculous.

Either the referee, panel and 1st appeal panel got it wrong or the whole process is shown as lacking. So very poor.

They should be. I think its about time us fans took action. The problem is I don't want to adversely affect trinity. But boycotting the world Cup would send a very powerful message. I certainly won't attend a single game and I was planning to.

I won’t attend unless a trin player is playing. Can’t believe Wire have 4 in knights yet Hall or Murphy aren’t included.

#boycotttherlworldcup22

To be fair think murphy would of been but he is injured but i get your point

Reece Lyne if he plays for Jamaica I will watch but the international game doesn’t interest me at all unless it involves a trinity player. The only England games I have watched were the ones TJ and Lyne got selected for.

I will watch Jamaica if Lyne is eligible for selection.

Isn't it sad that, Lyne, who has played for England, now wants to play for another nation ?

It's not the first time that one of the big 4 has run rings round the RFL.

It makes you wonder who's input IMG will listen to.
Wil it be completely impartial "for the good of the game" or, will they listen to everyone and then be led by Wigan, Leeds and Saints (plus a bit of Warrington and Hull).
They are supposed to have carte blanch but, will their plan actually be for the good of the whole sport ?

How St Helens successfully appealed Morgan Knowles ban before the Grand Final

It is the talk of rugby league. Morgan Knowles, banned for the Grand Final, has been cleared to play after St Helens successfully appealed his case. It has quickly become the biggest talking point ahead of the Grand Final. Two days out from Old Trafford, the fact that Knowles is free to play threatens to be one of the most controversial incidents in the build-up to a Grand Final.

The operations tribunal on that night consisted of the barrister, Sean Smith, Russ Bridge, a former Leigh Centurions, Wigan Warriors and Fulham player, and Alan Hunte, a Great Britain international who enjoyed a successful club career, predominantly with St Helens but also Warrington, Hull FC and Salford.

After deliberation, they decided to uphold the ban, citing that Knowles' actions posed an unacceptable risk of injury. But crucially, and this is the important thing, they agreed with St Helens' argument that Knowles had not forced Atkin's arm beyond the normal range of movement and accepted that his action was in an attempt to slow the play the ball down.

This is crucial because the findings of the first tribunal were the base of St Helens' second appeal. Within hours of the case being heard, St Helens, whose case has been directed by CEO Mike Rush, contacted the RFL to state, with provisional evidence, that the verdict was unreasonable and wished to appeal again.

Many have questioned how Saints got a second appeal just 24 hours after the first. Leeds have twice appealed appeals this year but the second hearing wasn't heard until a week later. But the rules state that a hearing will be heard the next day should documentation be lodged before 11 AM. St Helens sent details at around 8 AM.

At this point, Saints' defence was based around the findings of the first appeal. They argued that, given the first tribunal had agreed the incident didn't take Atkin beyond the normal range of movement, it meant it wasn't possible that Knowles could have provided an unacceptable risk of injury. They argued it was, in essence, a contradiction. They also argued that, given the previous panel had accepted the incident was a professional foul, it would be unreasonable to suspend him as professional fouls have never been a bannable offence.

As a consequence, the second tribunal, which featured judge Roger Thomas, former Halifax winger Wilf George and Danny Sculthorpe, whose playing career was largely played out at Wigan, accepted their case was valid and overturned the suspension.
In effect, St Helens were able to win the case by using the first tribunal's words against them. It was, to a degree, a technicality. But they got the outcome they were looking for.




The Super League champions, chasing a fourth-straight title, ensured their star forward would be free to play in the biggest game of the year following the processes set in place. This started when they initially appealed the Match Review Panel's charge against Knowles, which was a Grade B dangerous contact offence.

The first case took place on Tuesday evening. Saints argued, with medical evidence, that Knowles' actions on Salford's Chris Atkin did not force his arm beyond the normal range of movement, which therefore counteracted the decision to sanction him for dangerous contact. Furthermore, Saints argued that the tackle was a professional foul, with Knowles turning Atkin to slow the play the ball down.

It just has, Darcy Swain for Australia put an All Black out of action for at least 6 months by a disgusting attack on his standing leg, causing serious ligament damage. He's just got a 6 week ban, yet only a couple of months ago he copped a ban for a headbutt...so much for player safety!