That is still no reason to complain that you have been caught not doing enough to stop the abusive chanting. There is, as yet, no evidence that such chanting has been heard at other games so the point is mute.



Then if all these steps have been taken, the fine will have to be revoked and an apology served from Red Hall, won't it. Maybe an internal inquiry could be held at Cas to find out why this evidence of what the club did (which only seems to have appeared very late in this thread) was not presented when the fine was first imposed.


Many items in law are subjective, being decided ultimately by tribunals, majistrates, and judges. That doesn't lessen their validity.

How do you stop some fool from shouting abuse ?

=#8000FFDuck tape?

Its a shame for cas that they have a small minority of fans that keep causing the club so much trouble! the homosexuality through choice remark was aimed at others,apologies if you thought otherwise.

Quote ="Riggins"The RFL have set a very high bar now regarding not tolerrating discriminations against players. I do hope they do not think it is OK to make fun out of people with ginger hair as that would be the same of this issue. I would fully expect them now to come down on Leeds and Wigan after the below comments; www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/oc ... lens-leeds viewtopic.php?f=28&t=455274&start=0 www.nonleagueforum.co.uk/viewtop ... pid=233608'" As ever Si i bow to your aptitude, not alot of responses though, i wonder why

Quote ="Riggins"The RFL have set a very high bar now regarding not tolerrating discriminations against players. I do hope they do not think it is OK to make fun out of people with ginger hair as that would be the same of this issue. I would fully expect them now to come down on Leeds and Wigan after the below comments; www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/oc ... lens-leeds viewtopic.php?f=28&t=455274&start=0 www.nonleagueforum.co.uk/viewtop ... pid=233608'" As ever Si i bow to your aptitude, not alot of responses though, i wonder why

Quote ="Riggins"The RFL have set a very high bar now regarding not tolerrating discriminations against players. I do hope they do not think it is OK to make fun out of people with ginger hair as that would be the same of this issue. I would fully expect them now to come down on Leeds and Wigan after the below comments; www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/oc ... lens-leeds Mute point as the player didn't complain (unless you are using the link to suggest GT shouldn't have complained?) viewtopic.php?f=28&t=455274&start=0 Wrong again but given this refers to comments on a thread not at the game (unless I've missed something) do you expect the RFL to take action based on what they read on a thread? If you do then hope they don't read this viewtopic.php?f=16&t=457708 www.nonleagueforum.co.uk/viewtop ... pid=233608 Given this a a football thread would you like to include the thuggery from football as well as their view on ginger people, or is it just a thread that fitted the argument?'"

Quote ="Riggins"The RFL have set a very high bar now regarding not tolerrating discriminations against players. I do hope they do not think it is OK to make fun out of people with ginger hair as that would be the same of this issue. I would fully expect them now to come down on Leeds and Wigan after the below comments; www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/oc ... lens-leeds Mute point as the player didn't complain (unless you are using the link to suggest GT shouldn't have complained?) viewtopic.php?f=28&t=455274&start=0 Wrong again but given this refers to comments on a thread not at the game (unless I've missed something) do you expect the RFL to take action based on what they read on a thread? If you do then hope they don't read this viewtopic.php?f=16&t=457708 www.nonleagueforum.co.uk/viewtop ... pid=233608 Given this a a football thread would you like to include the thuggery from football as well as their view on ginger people, or is it just a thread that fitted the argument?'"

I suppose you could argue the point is moot, but given that we're on 12 pages already, it's certainly not 'mute'.

Actually gareth thomas in one of his many interviews on the subject has said that he suffered similar chanting at another ground afterwards.

He's on the woe is me trip now thats for sure, TBH i couldnt give a To$$ what GT thinks, And lets face it, the RFL doesnt give a To$$ what i think so all is fair in war as they say

Correct, only one incy wincy problem mate, the RFL are not the judicery are they? So their findings are subjective and hopefully will be decided by judges

Mmm so what have you got to say about the old whino's disgusting scenes then ie...............

This incy wincy little thing, but hey dont let that stop you spouting your usual e eh

Yup, as a Saints fan I can vouch for that. One of our stewards was beaten up by a Wigan fan and then they wrecked some of Knowsley Road's classiest corrugated iron wall and then to top things off they threw beer and other debris at our players after we beat them at their pad. So Pieman and his lot are in no place to comment upon the weirdos in other fanbases. They have a troublesome number of their own that they should worry about first. We have no trouble with any other fans. Hull KR fans are fun though - they sometimes fight each other!

Is this some sort of right-wing christian nutters' board, or what?

Pathetic.

The fine's too low, if you all think like that.

Anti scemetics are against the RFL rules, so why have you got a religious hate on Right Wing Christians ?

Hull KR fans fight each other ? How strange.

As a matter of interest, does anybody know the basis for a legal challenge to this fine?

The tribunal was chaired by a Crown Court Judge

=#8000FFStill not a judiciary if it's an RFL panel though, is it? it could have been chaired by the Queen and it wouldn't have mattered.

You caught me out me there!

Your point is not relevant. Your club were fined partly for [i"failure to undertake a meaningful inquiry afterwards"[/i.

The point was made that "meaningful" is subjective and the implication made that it was less valid because of that.

I made the argument that many cases of interpretation of "laws", of sports, and even of the country, are subjective, and are therefore decided by a representative of the presiding authority, whether that be a judge acting for the RFL, or a magistrate acting for the state.

Therefore a subjective law is no less valid, and the fact that Cas did [inot [/iundertake a meaningful inquiry afterwards, which would have been an appropriate action to take, means they are now liable to this fine.

Dunno but if Cas do pursue it they had better hope they win or it could be ta-ta. Presumably it would then be the Boards fault!

How would it be ta-ta if they lose the case ?

[url=http://castleford.dyndns.org/article.php?id=877Cas to appeal[/url

Sounds like no-one heard it apart from a few in the WRE.
Makes you wonder how on earth ''cry baby'' heard it when he was down the other end of the field supposively concentrating on the game.

Talk about blown out of proportion

after reading through the statement from the club for which they are to base their appeal on i think they are in a very stong position but i dont claim to be some boot room barister as many others seem to be on this thread, all i am baseing my comment on is what is writen in the clubs statement and what was said by the match commisioner and other officials. I dont for one minute think the fine will be overturned because A its cas and B Thomas has gone out of his way to make it known how hurt he was by the whole incident in every media outlet that has been available to him, and unfortunatly for cas the RFL are going to have to show a strong stance against it even if it has all got blown way out of proportion and as has been mentioned earlier i think, this is not going to look good on our next SL application.