And this is where the games begin; now we have a situation where Batley are essentially in the same position as if the game never happened, where as we are two points worse off

you,ve been robbed here you gain a point and lose 3 batley win 3 and lose 3 so in theory you boys are 2pts worse off could make a difference in you finishing 4th or 5th

Bad news but not unexpected.

But in fairness the clubs should have lost any points gained in the respective matches.

So in theory we have lost 2pts from another match where we didn't do anything wrong,
as we didn't even win that match in question

agree jemmo what a farce, whatever they did to Donny Batley should have got 2 points more.I fail to see how this decision is fair, where batley in effect have lost nothing while you are 2 points worse off

My prediction with regards to what the RFL would do if the teams were found guilty was that Batley and Donny would have lost all points gained in the match in question, plus a further penalty on top.

I was expecting them to impose a six point deduction for Batley and four point deduction for us. I'm surprised at the three and three decision.

Personally, I would have deducted one point from the Dons, deducted three points from Batley, and given both clubs a fine suspended for 12 months, only payable if a further breach occurred.

I would award Sheffield three points as they lost the game against Batley. Did I really say that I'd give the Eagles something?

It seems rather odds that two clubs fell foul of the rules. I would like to know whether the RFL had reminded clubs of the position prior to transfer deadline day, and clarified any points the clubs may have had before that weekend's games.

I appreciate each club must take responsibility for their own actions but with the Dons appealing against the decision, I wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye?

Agree with everyone - a very poorly thought out decision.

I concede it's difficult to award Sheffield the points - suppose they finish a point behind Dewsbury. They might validly claim that they might have beaten Batley had Fairbank not played, finished above Dewsbury and - crucially - earned a big wedge of extra funding for 2015.

On the other hand, give them the two points and Dewsbury might claim that Batley might have won anyway.

The loss of funding dwarfs the fines usually handed out for this sort of admin error in the past and it affects teams who haven't been at fault.

Agree that Batley have done really well out of it, though. No worse off than losing the game in the first place.

Risky. As they say on the investment adverts, points can go down as well as up.

I agree...part of me thinks we should take this on the chin and move on

As far as the implications go for the league table, after our three point deduction, we're three points ahead of Dewsbury but have a worse points difference.

Dewsbury play Batley A, Keighley H, and Workington A.

We play Rochdale A, Halifax H, Batley H.

Me too.

The RFL have once again proved that they move in mysterious ways in arriving at their conclusions and knowing them it'll probably go from bad to worse.

Leave it alone and concentrate on getting enough points to ensure we finish 4th (at worst).

They are making it up on the hoof and are s (I overheard someone say).
Clubs going into admin only get a small multiple of that and that clearly is a deliberate action.
Fielding an ineligible player is clearly a mistake and based on ignorance or misunderstanding.
A slap on the wrist for first offence and a ton of pain for any second offence.
Simples!

There is no point in an appeal to pricks.

Some years ago I was made aware that the Rl was not too be trusted. I have kept my silence over that issue but this ruling does nothing to alter that opinion. Why is it that sport in our Town has to be so bloody frustrating. There are many opinions on club Doncaster but this just strengthens the resolve IMO. Come on Doncaster the Town needs a real boost and in the current set up I have more than enough faith.

There appears to be regular variations in RFL decisions. Similar offences get totally different punishments!
Unless there is substantial evidence, which should have been made in our submission, I think we have no hope of any reduction.

Reading between the lines of the club statement it seems we checked with the rfl before the game and were given the impression we had permission to play Crooks, so while I agree in principal we should appeal, like others, I am concerned with how this will go. Also as has been mentioned the two punishments being identical hardly seems fair.

I'm surprised that some are surprised, this is the rfl we are talking about, they couldn't run a bath.