Was on Whitehaven forum yesterday and they are going CRAZY

.Saying when Leigh scored to go 8-12 up they had 14 men on the pitch and the officals missed it.RFL going to look at match report,do you think anything will be done about this?

No, unless they can prove it. I'm not saying it didn't happen but you can't reverse a result just because someone's kicked up a stink.

the rfl are investigating yesterdays match due to to haven lodging official complaint. so it says on the leigh board viewtopic.php?f=22&t=457752 allso here www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... Leigh.html

the rfl are investigating yesterdays match due to to haven lodging official complaint. so it says on the leigh board viewtopic.php?f=22&t=457752 allso here www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... Leigh.html

Be assured that the RFL's main objective will be to cover its own backside.

Just for your information the allegation has as much chance of suceeding as me winning the lottery and I never buy a ticket.

I was there and at no time when the ball was in play did Leigh have 14 players involved. The DVD is clear on this. The appeal is a complete waste of time for whoever has to look at it and throw it out. It is as pathetic as it is frivolous and the Haven coach should be ashamed of himself.

Frivolous is a little strong. After all, he was an ineligible player on the field at that time. Due to not reporting properly to the fourth official. However I don't expect anything to come from it except a fine and possible suspension for Duffy.


Before anyone says he wasn't ineligible, it means under the rules he wasn't eligible. In order to be eligible he had to report to the fourth official and then wait to be allowed on. Therefore he's ineligible.

Were you there Billy, you make your final statement as though you were

Quote DemonUK="DemonUK"Were you there Billy, you make your final statement as though you were'" Was he not sent off for entering the field without permission???? Therefore ineligible! Not sure why I'd need to be there to say it isn't frivolous. After all frivolous means: =#FF00001. not serious or sensible in content, attitude, or behaviour; silly a frivolous remark 2. unworthy of serious or sensible treatment; unimportant frivolous details All the paper reports suggest he was sent off for this. Here's a report from your own local rag: Quote DemonUKCue controversy, which seems to follow referee Craig Halloran around. As Nanyn hit the conversion, Halloran took a report from the fourth official charged with looking after the conduct and substitutions of both benches. He was then approached by the match commisioner with Duffy's substitution on their lips. The Leigh hooker was brought before the referee and promptly red carded, however Leigh were allowed to put Dave McConnell back onto the field and after he checked with the referee, he gave a thumbs-up sign to the bench while Duffy incredulously made his way to the dressing rooms. '" www.leighjournal.co.uk/sport/lei ... ue_double/ Just in case that one isn't enough here's another match report Quote DemonUKThe fourth official and match commissioner alerted game referee Craig Halloran to the fact that Duffy’s previous substitution should not have counted and he promptly showed the red card to the hooker and then allowed Dave McConnell to re-enter play. '" www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/bo ... urions_12/ Therefore, it isn't =#FF0000frivolous to complain about a possible act of misconduct. Whether they expect anything is another matter.

Quote DemonUK="DemonUK"Were you there Billy, you make your final statement as though you were'" Was he not sent off for entering the field without permission???? Therefore ineligible! Not sure why I'd need to be there to say it isn't frivolous. After all frivolous means: =#FF00001. not serious or sensible in content, attitude, or behaviour; silly a frivolous remark 2. unworthy of serious or sensible treatment; unimportant frivolous details All the paper reports suggest he was sent off for this. Here's a report from your own local rag: Quote DemonUKCue controversy, which seems to follow referee Craig Halloran around. As Nanyn hit the conversion, Halloran took a report from the fourth official charged with looking after the conduct and substitutions of both benches. He was then approached by the match commisioner with Duffy's substitution on their lips. The Leigh hooker was brought before the referee and promptly red carded, however Leigh were allowed to put Dave McConnell back onto the field and after he checked with the referee, he gave a thumbs-up sign to the bench while Duffy incredulously made his way to the dressing rooms. '" www.leighjournal.co.uk/sport/lei ... ue_double/ Just in case that one isn't enough here's another match report Quote DemonUKThe fourth official and match commissioner alerted game referee Craig Halloran to the fact that Duffy’s previous substitution should not have counted and he promptly showed the red card to the hooker and then allowed Dave McConnell to re-enter play. '" www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/bo ... urions_12/ Therefore, it isn't =#FF0000frivolous to complain about a possible act of misconduct. Whether they expect anything is another matter.

Yes but was it illegal, or did something else happen. I agree thats what the referees or MCs report will say or does say. The question remains how did it happen. With the number of Haven people (coaches, subs, water carriers) stood almost right on the touchline there was very little room to move and there was only one official covering both benches (should be one for each bench I think). Also cry baby stokes was on at him all the time apparently, 4th official was being harrassed for alot of the game apparently.

The RFL will make whatever decsion they make, but on the 14 men claim there is no case to answer.

This permission for a sub to replace a player surely is in place so that the number of times relating to substitutions is adhered to. Stokes knows it was and so do all the officials. That is why it is frivolous.

So if it was adhered to, why do you think he was sent off or are you saying that the officials just thought, oh sod it we'll send him off instead!!! Come on do you really believe that???

This is a quote from a Haven fan who I know that was at the game on Sunday.

"Yep that's right, they brought duffy on illegally and he was involved in the play that got them the try. The try should be disallowed which would mean a win for us! The ref sent duffy off, they still had 13 men on the pitch and he was then subbed on! :/ makes ok sense that sums up how well the ref played, didn't have a clue"