Quote EXPRO="EXPRO"What has always been a bone of contention to me about appeals overturning suspensions etc is that if they have overturned it due to provacation then
A why wasnt this seen to begin with from the VT like everyone else saw and save the player a lot of worry, time and money.
=#0000BFB if he is provoked then surely Bailey has to answer for his part in it as per their own rules?
C, wouldnt it make sense to have someone from the club present in the actual initial viewing of the incident who may point these things out before the shout of wether it needs him to attent or not in the first place...'"
The reason why Bailey does not have to answer is that the RFl thought his actions were accidental as he was trying to regain his feet - although still provoking a response from Radford. Here is the summary from the original tribunal:
Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 6 September 2010, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(a) during the above Match. The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 10th minute of the Match. You were sent off following this incident. In the Panel’s opinion R intentionally struck his opponent. Whilst the Panel believed that R was provoked by his opponent’s actions in attempting a quick play the ball, that the confrontation was minor and the sending off had resulted in him missing a large proportion of the match, the punch was misconduct worthy of referral to the Tribunal
'"
