Quote ="KaeruJim"So the message from the disciplinary panel is: our decisions are final and don't bother appealing. In effect there isn't an appeals system.
Fine, so long as we know that.
I've said it before but the system needs an overhaul IMO. Looking at the incidents, 10 mins sin bin was sufficient for Dwyer (10 mins in a tight game can easily cost you the result). I'd say 2-3 games for Bentley, it was reckless. Maybe they're setting the stall out early in the season to put a marker down and try to prevent more incidents.
It is what it is, we just about have the squad depth to cope at this stage.'"
Agree with most of that, I think a part of the argument from Leeds will have been that they lowered Currie's charge on the basis that Fusitua was dipping when hit and he's served no punishment at all, so why the double standard with Bentley? Widdop was certainly dipping. If that was their argument then it's certainly not frivolous to ask the disciplinary panel to apply the same standards to two headshots in the same game.
As it stands Bentley has essentially received a 5 game ban for a fairly run of the mill head shot and Leeds having the temerity to ask why.
Not a fan of bans being increased on appeal, it's a club decision and I don't understand the logic of making the player suffer. Increase the fines by all means, perhaps have club based disciplinary points that can be applied to appeals deemed frivolous and deduct competition points if they do too many...whatever, but I'm sure in Leeds mind this wasn't a frivolous appeal, they weren't just asking for the sake of asking, so why decide the offence was worse today than it was yesterday?
