Why would you get that impression?
The rules are clearB3

If you thought that someone at the other end of the phone was telling you this rule didn't apply, a responsible club official should have GOT IT IN WRITING that it was ok for the DR player to be selected. You wouldn't have got it in writing though as it wouldn't have been signed off. It was your risk relying on what, it appears, you thought a junior member of staff said on the phone.




Why? As soon as the match kicks off and you have an ineligible player on the pitch, the offence has been committed. The result of the match is irrelevant.

I got that impression because that is what the statement implies as it says

'Whilst we do not dispute Ben played in the game, based on communications and dialogue we have had with the RFL prior to the player participating in the game we are disappointed with the outcome of the hearing and the punishment that has been provided.'

And the two point deductions being identical is not fair as Batley have been reduced to what they would have been had they forfeited the match so they have lost all match points for that match, with no extra punishment. However we have lost all match points plus two more meaning unlike Batley we are worse off than if we had forfeited the game. Thus we have effectively been given a harsher punishment for the same offence, which is not fair.

As soon as the match kicks off and you have an ineligible player on the pitch, the offence has been committed. The result of the match is irrelevant.'"

All points ok to be made.

But the RFL has to have, so far as possible, clear rules with clear penalties for breaking the laid down rules, ie effectively 'cheating'.

We all now know that the penalty for breaking this DR rule (which relates to the league competition) is 3 points deducted. Now quite clear - a consistent penalty.

It's just like cases of clubs going into Administration ie. Cheating by playing players you couldn't really afford. The RFL just imposes a 9 point deduction. They can't start trawling through the results of every game the club that went into Administration played and deduct points depending on whether the club won, drew, lost each match or got a bonus point. They certainly can't require all the matches to be replayed with a team the club can afford.

Just same in this case of breaching the DR rules. You could say the relevant matches should be expunged from the record and replayed. But that's not the decision. The RFL decided upon a practical and consistent penalty. Just like for opponents who have lost matches against a club that went into Administration at some point later in the season - it's tough luck. That's life.

That's why the Dons appeal is doomed to fail (assuming it's based on 'it's not fair Batley won so should be docked 3 points but we only got a bonus point so should only be docked 1'). It won't wash.

The penalty for breaching the DR rules is now clear and consistent: 3 points docked. All clubs now have to live with it.

Suggest all Championship clubs follow Dewsbury's and Keighley's lead and set a policy of no longer using DR at all. Super League clubs should be required to run their own A team, under 23 team or whatever. If there has to be DR, SL clubs should only be allowed to DR with Championship 1 clubs.

Perhaps the RFL when deciding on the DR scheme should have stated amongst the many rules " the penalty for any breach will be a 3 point deduction " and no it's not with the benefit of hindsight it's poor management and the result of a hastily thought out scheme.

I dispute the comment "hastily thought out".

Well, the "thought out" bit, anyway.

The objective of all rules should be to make the competition as fair as possible to all concerned.

There are situations where extreme complications occur such as sides going into administration. Results can't be expunged or games replayed in this situation. It's simple not practicable.

In cup games if a team is found to have played an ineligible player in round one, but the incident isn't identified until after round three has been played, the team that lost in round three is re-instated, not the team from round one - because it wouldn't be practicable to do the whole thing again. This makes sense although not perfect.

Most rules are not perfect as they can't cover every possible eventuality but what doesn't make sense is that the RFL have had an opportunity to apply fairer rules in this case which would have meant Sheffield were awarded the match against Batley - and they've chosen not to do it.

If Sheffield got relegated on the back of a try being scored by an ineligible player scoring it, how fair would that be?

I think the RFL had an opportunity to rectify this situation in a better way than they have.

I think a 3 point penalty for breaching the DR rules by fielding an ineligible player is fine.

We can all come up with variants; eg 3 points deduction AND deduct any points you got in the relevant match etc etc.

But I think the principle of the breach of the rules being committed as soon as the match starts with an ineligible player on the field (without considering what the eventual score was was) is ok.

If you start trying to fit the penalty to what the eventual score was you'd end up with no penalty at all for a club breaching the rules but where they lost the game in question (and didn't get a bonus point either). That can't be right.

BTW, Crooks scored a try near the end of the Keighley v Doncaster match. What if Keighley get relegated on a narrow points difference (still a possibility)?

I agree that we'll all come up with slightly different ways to solve the problem. There is no perfect solution.

My personal answer would be to deduct three points for the breach regardless of the outcome of the game. The game concerned should also see the offending side receive no points from the match. Three points should be awarded to the non-offending side.

The points difference for the game should be one of +13 for the non-offending side, and -13 for the offending team, unless the original result was more beneficial to the non-offending team.

In this way, as many bases are covered as is reasonably practicable. Sheffield wouldn't have been inconvenienced and Keighley's points difference wouldn't have been adversely affected.

Let's hope that in the interest of fairness to all concerned that these breaches don't have any major consequences to the outcome of the league positions or promotion/relegation issues.

Surprised Batley and Wales coach John Kear got it wrong. Haven't seen any comment from him and could be a massive mistake on his part.

Batley, as well as the Dons, are appealing against their points deduction for fielding an ineligible player.

Both clubs have revealed little as to why they feel an appeal is justified.

I've been checking through the RFL rules to see if I could identify any areas that could be contentious. The rule that has been breached is that the said players had not played three games for their Dual Reg side before the transfer deadline, making them ineligible for games after the transfer deadline.

B3

Could it be possible that the Dons had attempted to switch Ben Crooks over to a loan agreement on the Saturday, after the Friday transfer deadline, which would be the day before the Keighley game, thereby making the three game rule irrelevant according to the above rule? The only condition that then seems to apply is that he must play three games in order to to be eligible for the Play Offs.

Could this be what all the fuss is about?

Three points deducted or none - you'll probably still finish fourth.

Why would anyone want to risk a bigger penalty than the slap on the wrist Dons have been given ?

Leave well enough alone.


Batley - on the other hand - different kettle of fish. On the face of it, they've had a lighter penalty, just losing the three points they gained when playing the ineligible player. Yet those three points will most likely tip the scales towards relegation. They have to appeal.

And the appeals need to be held soon. Whitehaven, in particular, need to know where they stand.

Rugby League WAS once called a SIMPLE game played by SIMPLE people.

It gets more like R U every year.

Now ruled by SIMPLE people.