I'm certain the players will show a strong response to this decision in their performance.

Paulcullen@rfl.co.uk Or if that doesnt work, cnts@rfl.co.uk

Paulcullen@rfl.co.uk Or if that doesnt work, cnts@rfl.co.uk

It's barely going to be worth watching and not sure I will now.

Joke

The threequarters are a big loss, plus Austin/Martin. Walker makes no difference. Dwyer would be a bit of a loss but we do have plenty of cover there. Given our likely team a competitive performance for 80 minutes would be a good result. It fells like a bridge too far though, and lots of lessons for next year.

I see yet again the panel has had a hissy fit, deeming Martin's appeal 'frivolous' and adding another match. I do have a slight bit of sympathy in this case for refusing the appeal as he caught the opponent high, but that is disgraceful language again and the extra game is a farce.

Definitely wait until after the last game, but I'd actually be disappointed if Leeds don't make some sort of public statement about the disciplinary.

But the minimal and incidental touch on the end of Mellors nose on Martins arm brushing past to make the tackle around the ball is not the contact the mrp spoke about trying to eliminate from the game. There is absolutely no head injury risk or 'flexion' (to use their other favourite F word) .

I hope leeds do have a very public response to the whole situation, but I hope the other clubs are part of the that too as this can't go on and it needs a collective stance..

I understand the relatively trivial issue of the tackle, just arguing that strictly speaking he did catch him high, even if unintentionally and unlucky it was straight on the hooter. As you say, its not that sort of impact that would cause the game problems - allowing obvious head shots to go unpunished would be a problem in terms of perception, but ultimately the real problem is the nature of the game itself.

Regardless, the disciplinary has been an utter farce this year. Thirteen players cited the other week. Ridiculous. If anything they are banning so many players you could argue they are adding to the risk of those left unbanned, who have to play more games as a result.

Not sure how this will ever be resolved without a complete overall of the disciplinary system. Surely the RFL should resort to a system where only offences that are picked up by match officials are subjected to a disciplinary panel. Maybe this should include a fourth video official at all games. Appeals against any bans should be allowed without fear of further punishment. Perhaps we should have a points system for yellow cards like football with only red cards going to a disciplinary.
In a contact sport you will always have incidents where tackles are high or late. These should be dealt with on the pitch when the referee with help from other officials can decide if there was clear intent.
I am sure we all agree that players deliberately taking out another should be punished but the system at the moment is a farce run by idiots that seem to be able to do and say what they like with nobody to answer to.

Wigan fan here, I hadn't commented on the Martin ban because I hadn't seen the tackle but I just watched it and I could not believe my eyes! That is just barely a penalty. How they got a ban from that in the first place is baffling to me. To then add another match because of a "frivolous" appeal absolutely beggars belief. It's absolutely outrageous and I will be contacting the RFL to make my feelings clear.

He caught him high and has been punished. It wasn't a malicious tackle or a swinging arm with intent. The problem imo is that you could find numerous similar tackles throughout the season that have not even led to a charge. As someone mentioned Donaldson gets hit high every week, very few if any result in a charge.

I hope many more fans and coaches of all clubs do.

Presumably Leeds will be appealing the frivolous charge again.

Correct, if the rules were applied uniformly across the game dozens of bans would be dished out. It’s unfortunate for us Martin seems to have been singled out . I am not a conspiracy theory fan so I can only conclude it’s bureaucratic nonsense. However it puts a lot of pressure on this Fridays referee. Likewise with the discipline panel looking at the remaining matches. Be interesting to see if this Friday ,the sky commentators have anything to say on the matter. Obviously it’s a hot topic and should be discussed in depth. Any major decisions going against us this Friday will worsen the situation between us and the RL. God forbid we lose the game on Friday with missed goal kicks, that really would put the cat amongst the pigeons

We urgently need the services of Rumpole of the Bailey!!

We lose out by missed kicks whilst Kasiano gets a hat trick

Send the team out with the instruction to not attempt any kind of tackle above the waist, this is clearly what the MRP are hoping for. The match will be a farce... but thats the way the game is heading.
Alternatively players start wearing NFL Helmets and neck braces and go back to Biff that way

The real issue at stake is inconsistency and if the RFL are consistent on one thing it’s inconsistency. They should take a close look at themselves and be honest. If the system requires change and in its current form it does then it should be sorted before the start of next season. If the system remains then the very least must be a total clear out of all involved with a fresh and more qualified panel replacing the existing one!

Rohan Smith's pre-game interview should be interesting this week.

To me, this reads a bit like someone on the MRP has a chip on his shoulder and wants to put some of the bigger SL clubs 'in their place' with impunity, at the same time as hiding behind the RFL's disciplinary rules. The only way to stop this is for the SL clubs, coaches and players (maybe some ex-referees too) to come together to force major changes for next season. Fans not attending games is not the way to go IMO.

We all want foul and dangerous play to be removed from the game to protect players, but the more minor infringments need to be dealt with in a less clumsy way than handing out 1-2 game bans. Appeals should not automatically result in ban extensions under these circumstances either.

Spot on ,the RL have been successful in stamping out the thuggery in the game . Most of us will recall Sean Long receiving a bad shot in which he suffered a severe injury. Also not forgetting Hanleys received assault over in Hull . So the game has improved dramatically regarding that aspect of the game. Ref conspiracy against Leeds?,highly unlikely, that would require a degree of intelligence obviously lacking at rugby league HQ.

....after he has dished out half a dozen unpunished late hits/high tackles

What's hilarious is that Paul Cullen even heads the committee. He was the definition of "old school enforcer" as I remember him. Talk about poacher turned gamekeeper.

Cullen should resign or be sacked simple as that!

Mellor has come out as well and said it wasn't a penalty let alone a ban, and expressed his empathy to Martin.

Definition of frivolous:
Unworthy of serious attention; trivial.
Inappropriately silly.
Of little weight or importance; not worth notice; slight.

I wonder how the panel of experts view our appeal in the context of the above.

I feel it more appropriately defines the panel itself, which is sad, given that the main objective must be the exact opposite - to reduce foul play, protect players from serious injury, clamp down on serial offenders and stand as a body respected by players, clubs and supporters.

Harry is named in the 21!

... Though I'd be surprised to see him in the 17

I feel for Leeds, and more to the point Martin, nevr a ban in my eyes.

I do have to wonder, however, are Leeds as a club actually any good at appealing? Are they just getting it all wrong?

It's difficult isn't it - you either appeal and plead not guilty, which is problematic because there was contact with the head. Or you appeal against the ban, which is problematic as it's Grade A and Martin has been banned previously (setting aside the merits of said ban). Is the frivolous aspect the fact that Leeds have essentiallly pled not guilt when he makes contact with the head?

Rightly or wrongly Leeds did not play the Newman situation well and all that public (pointless and in my view incorrect) criticism of the disciplinary over that incident wasn't a particularly strategic response.