Way some people are going on you are Gary Schofield as you by 8

Beyond the fact it was blatantly putting undue pressure on a joint?

I’m more interested as to what evidence can be put forward and not deemed frivolous apart from proving it didn’t happen (which it clearly did) because Leeds seemed to have tried this approach, comparing to other incidents etc, and twice been slapped with the extra frivolous ban, despite Rohan clearly outlining all the steps the club went through before appealing.

To be quite honest I now think my biggest issue with it all is the word frivolous, which suggests the club just through out an appeal based on no evidence whatsoever, which we are on record as saying wasn’t the case.

Simple hes in the England squad

Not the ban the appeal

As I said, at least twice this year Leeds have appealed bans based on the idea of comparing them to other outcomes and bans handed out, or by comparing them to similar incidents, offering mitigation, and at least twice such an appeal has been tagged as frivolous, in part I assume because in both cases there’s no doubt the offence has actual happened.

I assume Saints have taken a similar route, because there is no doubt that Lees did commit an offence, and if they did use similar arguments surely it’s just as frivolous. If they used a different approach it’d be interesting to know how they went about it because hardly anyone has had any joy with appeals and often it’s been made worse on appeal.

I am not sure how solid your assumption is about the route Saints took. What I do know is we paid a legal firm quite a bit of money at the start of the year to build a framework for working with the MRP and seemingly it has been money well spent, given we have had a number of successful challenges this year, and no frivolous penalties.

I guess the problem is that appealing based on others getting away with it is not actually challenging whether the offence actually took place. If I were to guess, I suspect Saints appeal would have been based around the charge of dangerous contact, arguing it wasnt dangerous.

Leeds did the same - legal advice, former referees advice. They had almost everything they legitimately raised chucked back at them.

The system as it stands won't last the closed season, we can be pretty sure of that.

I make this post with my legal hat on, that being what I do on a day to day basis. Important to qualify I do not pretend to know the inner workings of the disciplinary panel before I start. The charge, as far as I can see was dangerous contact and it came with a two match ban. This is what appears on the RFL website Incident:
Dangerous Contact

Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Grade B
Sanctions:
2 match penalty notice

The appeal or basis of the appeal isn’t published, or if it is then it doesn’t appear readily available on the RFL disciplinary site at the time I post.

Now if I take the guess from your post, that the appeal was made on the basis it wasn’t dangerous contact. The charge remains in place I.e dangerous contact, the original sanction remains the same I.e 2 match ban. As such I struggle to see how any argument or basis for an appeal has been successful. A separate panel (as I understand it) have decided that the charge was correct and the sanction was correct. So it was dangerous and warranted a two match ban.

Now let me be clear, I have absolutely no problem with appeals, in fact I think every case should be allowed an appeal without risk of further sanction. In particular in play off rounds and in particular grand final week an appeal without further sanction should be the norm. However, those aren’t the rules at the moment and as such Knowles and his appeal should be considered against the current rules, the current frivolous appeal sanctions in place and what has been going on all year and in particular for other cases in the play offs. For that I consider the appeal (not offence) made by Leeds for Martin and his ban.

Now if you appeal on the basis it isn’t dangerous and the charge remains dangerous contact with the same 2 match ban, that appeal has not been successful in any way, shape or form. It appears completely discretionary as to whether that appeal is frivolous or not. I would say the appeal was clearly frivolous and given the precedents all year and in the play offs further matches are added.

Again to be clear, I would much rather both sides had all players available, injuries and suspensions are rubbish, especially on the big stage. I would also suggest appeals should not carry further bans, especially if that is purely discretionary. The idea of a fair legal or disciplinary system is to make it fair, easy to follow, transparent and with limited discretionary events. The MRP is not doing very well on that criteria.

Any tan from any club would surely be able to see why a Leeds fan would take the view they are being singled out or the system is biased towards them. In a play off they appeal a ban, it’s deemed frivolous and get a further match. Knowles appeals, his charge and sanction remain the same, so any basis of the appeal cannot have been significantly successful, he also has a generally poorish disciplinary records but the appeal seems to be okay with no problem and no further match added. Now if that is because it’s grand final week fair enough, but publish that rule or direction, make it clear and allow all fans from all clubs the ability to understand the rules and procedures in place.

Anyway enough of all that. Grand final week, glad it is saints we are playing, they have been the best team for 4 years. We have a chance as it’s a grand final but either way hope for a good game. Loads of respect for saints as a club, the youth production etc and hope the team who plays best on the night comes away with the trophy.

Great post

Best of luck Rhinos.

Both tickets still available to purchase. Please let me know.

Will accept £130 for both.

Original price: Block N1406 Row 4 Seating price £85 each

Thanks Dan

From memory

04 - even
05 - even
07- slight underdogs
08 - massive underdogs
09 - slight favourites
11 - underdogs
12 - underdogs
15 - slight favourites
17 - underdogs

If you read the review of the appeal from the Rhyse Martin ban, it sounds like Leeds didn't object to guilt, or the grading. Their argument seemed to be that the ban is harsh, and they've got the most important game of the season coming up. They showed evidence of other incidents that got more lenient bans. Problem is if you're not objecting to the guilt or the grading, then they can't reduce his ban from 1 match to 0 matches, as there is a very clear set of criteria as to whether or not he can get the 0 games. It specifically said there was nothing in the rules that would allow them to reduce the ban with the same grading, thus it has to be deemed a frivolous appeal.

Saints probably either challenged charge itself or the grading, the tribunal disagreed and upheld the ban but it's not frivolous.

Sounds like Leeds don't really understand how it works if you look at the Martin and Newman cases tbh lol

Lees didn't get banned it's Knowles

You have missed my point; again I don't know the grounds by which Saints did appeal. The suggestion of my previous post (which I assumed to be clear) was a complete fabrication of a guess. Whether its appropriate or not for the RFL to publish specific details of appeals I wouldn't comment on, but given Leeds have published that they used other examples of incidents in their appeals, it is clear that the MRP deem that to be frivolous, and one can therefore assume it wasn't the basis of Saints appeal. I can also see why the MRP see that approach as frivolous - you cant challenge a conviction for robbing a car with "but lots of other people rob cars".

You might feel like the MRP are biased against Leeds (lord knows enough Saints fans think they're biased against them), but I really don't see how Knowles not being handed and additional game for a frivolous appeal "proves" that or otherwise - as we don't know the grounds by which Saints appealed or how it compares in quality to what Leeds have put forward previously. Personally 2 games for Knowles and 3 games for Bateman is a joke in my eyes as the relative impact and risk both created is in two completely different spectrums, but without knowing what Wigan presented in his defence, what more can be said.

What this sort of leads us to, is hopefully a common agreement that the whole process feels like its been designed to be deliberately misleading and abstracted away from fans. Perhaps in previous seasons where there was less attention on the MRP that was fine, but we have seen the RFLs response to the legal challenges it faces to really use the MRP as a tool to demonstrate its doing ... [isomething[/i to respond to head injury concerns, and pushing it into the spotlight like that has shown massive reform is necessary. Even simple things, like a library of incidents at each grading, with a member of the panel explaining what they're looking for and how it got to the grading it was at, and what the player would have had to do differently to avoid being picked up, would do wonders for helping fans feel more engaged in the process. But I wont hold my breath

A little win for Leeds with Liam Moore getting the Grand Final and Kendall nowhere to be seen (well ok he's reserve referee, let's hope Moore keeps himself wrapped up in cotton wool all week).

Thaler in the video van again as well so we can have no complaints.

On the "other people rob cars line": if the appeal does not concern the commission of the offence but rather the grade of punishment, it is entirely reasonable to cite other similar cases that have received different sanctions as part of that appeal. The idea that this should be deemed "frivolous" might be described as a frivolous misuse of the word "frivolous".

I don't think there is any bias as such, but the system is so poorly designed (an appeal against a "frivolous" appeal cannot be frivolous!) and so clearly unfit for purpose that it has threatened to ruin the year. A drastic overhaul is urgently required.

After prosecuting all manner of offences, both serious and minor, and an almost arbitrary range of sentences, the panel's somehow managed, in the final week of the season, to come up with a series of rulings bordering on reasonable.

Three for Bateman, two for Knowles and a slap on the wrist for Welsby is roundabout the standard they should have been starting from. If they'd done this and stuck with it then I reckon most fans would've been ok with it.

I don't get the Welsby one though, it's either no warning necessary (tackle is perfectly fine) or it's a greater grading than given.

Just hope you can smash Saints.

Said the sage Liverpudlian solicitor to his legal aid client.

Me neither but I’ve given up on the disciplinary process.

With Sezer out I can’t see how we score enough to be in the game but I could not see the last 2 wins. This though is another step up and I expect Saints to win quite comfortably. Anything else I’ll take as Bonus from where we’ve been.

May already have been asked but where’s best to park?

Or is it easier to get a train to manchester then get a tram?

There's usually plenty of places near the ground. An option is to park further out and get the tram in

Cheers i might just drive to the vicinity of the ground and try my luck.

Although the train and a few beers before is tempting aswell!