Yep! I don't like seeing players miss the big games but you can't change the rules on the eve of the final to suit one club especially when you see some of the bans we've kopped this season! Let's get over there and give it a go! It's a free hit as far as I'm concerned. Most other teams will be backing us on the strength of this ridiculous decision.

I’m just glad there is no knee jerk overreaction to this

Do you actually think it's an overreaction?
Do you actually think what Knowles did wasn't worthy of a ban?
Do you actually think that Saints should have been allowed to appeal the appeal? And before you say Leeds have done it, we haven't, we've appealed the frivolous judgements.

I think the general consensus was that you got remarkably lucky having only one ban given how much foul play, how many headshots and late hits went in against Salford, but this just extracts the urine.

I just hope he tries it again on Saturday and sees what happens.

If you can't see why suddenly changing the judicial process just to benefit one club in Grand Final week isn't devastating for the sport's integrity then your blind partisanship has got the better of you.

That this specially constituted new process delivered a ruling entirely inconsistent with previous disciplinary decisions this year is only the secondary scandal.

The sport is on fire tonight, I'm torn between agreeing with the sentiment and being terrified that this scandal is so huge it could do genuine lasting damage. If all trust in the integrity of the governing body is lost then there's not much we have to cling to as watchers of sport.

Right up there with Wigan's rule twisting over the salary cap all those years ago.
Rugby league is a s*it sport at times.

I don't know what level of impact messaging the RLF Facebook page on mass can have but I've added my contribution. There needs to be a strong supporter reaction to the governing body on this as it's sets a precedent and the games dragged into disrepute.

It’s not about new sanctions. You can appeal the result of your appeal, which you did twice and now we’ve done.

Quote ="Seth"I don't know what level of impact messaging the RLF Facebook page on mass can have but I've added my contribution. There needs to be a strong supporter reaction to the governing body on this as it's sets a precedent and the games dragged into disrepute.'" Not sure if this link works but may be worth considering a post or comment going to them if you feel it is worth it. https://www.rlfans.com/index.php?id=3059

Quote ="Seth"I don't know what level of impact messaging the RLF Facebook page on mass can have but I've added my contribution. There needs to be a strong supporter reaction to the governing body on this as it's sets a precedent and the games dragged into disrepute.'" Not sure if this link works but may be worth considering a post or comment going to them if you feel it is worth it. https://www.rlfans.com/index.php?id=3059

No you're wrong. The rules specifically state the appeals panel is the final decision. There is - was - no system for second appeals against original sanctions. This apparently new system has just been made up/allowed to exist, just to benefit St Helens, just this week.

It's the most corrupt looking thing we've seen. At least some of the decisions handed down before had a fig leaf of subjectivity about them. At least the framework of the system had some integrity. Now even that's been destroyed. And for what? So the St Helens club can win a tainted title? That's enough to be worth bringing the game to its knees over?

Bollocks. This has always been the rules. Have you got a link or screenshot to these supposed rules that existed 24 hours ago? Obviously they haven’t just made it up lmao you literally appealed an appeal result twice this season already. Farcical levels of delusion here

No you cannot appeal the result of an appeal, unless the result of the original appeal is for additional matches to be added to the orignal sanction. I will spoon feed it to you, so you cannot misunderstand.

1. Martin is banned for a single match for an offence
2. That ban is then appealed
3. The appeal is not successful and an additional match is added to the original sanction. That additional match being for the frivolous nature of the appeal (now a two game ban).
4. A further appeal is made, not against the original ban of one match, but rather the additional or second match which was added for the frivolous appeal against the original one game ban.
5. That further appeal isn’t successful, the orignal appeal is deemed frivolous and Martin is banned for two games. One for the offence and one for the frivolous appeal.

1. Knowles is banned for two matches for an offence
2. That ban is then appealed
3. The appeal is not successful, the charge and grading remain static. No additional match is added, the panel must have taken the view it was not frivolous.
4. A further appeal is made, it cannot be against any additional marches or frivolous nature of the appeal because no additional matches were added to the orignal sanction on appeal and it wasn’t deemed a frivolous appeal.
5. The original sanction is over turned and as such there is essentially no ban and Knowles is free to play.

Those two situations are not the same, they have very significant differences. What you are talking about with Knowles is a secondary appeal or an appeal against an appeal decision. I don’t like the original decision, I’ve appealed and lost again so I am going to keep going until I get a different answer.

That just isn’t what the rules are, they never have been. So how come in the week of a grand final, are St Helens allowed to make an appeal that no other club has seemingly been able to make all year?

Obviously it is what the rules are because we’ve just done it??

Are you genuinely suggesting that they’ve just changed the rules to allow us to do it? Insanity

You got that right

I hope the RFL statement is pasted on every door at Headingley and the Kirkstall training complex, best piece of Sports Psychology ever.
If Rhinos win on Saturday Saints will probably appeal and get the result reversed.

Good grief,t I think you've finally understood why this has very quickly become such a huge scandal.

https://www.rugby-league.com/flipbooks/ ... html#p=199 I think some people need to read section D2:62 onwards. Some points of clarity. No there is no limit set by the operational rules on the appeals process, only that must new evidence that is presented wasn’t previously available. As far as I can tell, there’s no such thing as appealing the previous appeal outcome only - each appeal appeals the whole charge, even if that is the intent of the person doing the appealing. So this is the same process as Leeds have used this year as well. Judging by the comments in the Saints statement, I assume they brought Wednesdays appeal on the basis of “failed to act fairly in a procedural sense”, given they called the outcome of Tuesdays appeal “unreasonable”. I will read the promised minutes with interest for sure. All that being said, it’s an absolute farce of a system, poorly articulated in the rules and given the much increased importance it has played this year, absolutely needs overhauling.

https://www.rugby-league.com/flipbooks/ ... html#p=199 I think some people need to read section D2:62 onwards. Some points of clarity. No there is no limit set by the operational rules on the appeals process, only that must new evidence that is presented wasn’t previously available. As far as I can tell, there’s no such thing as appealing the previous appeal outcome only - each appeal appeals the whole charge, even if that is the intent of the person doing the appealing. So this is the same process as Leeds have used this year as well. Judging by the comments in the Saints statement, I assume they brought Wednesdays appeal on the basis of “failed to act fairly in a procedural sense”, given they called the outcome of Tuesdays appeal “unreasonable”. I will read the promised minutes with interest for sure. All that being said, it’s an absolute farce of a system, poorly articulated in the rules and given the much increased importance it has played this year, absolutely needs overhauling.

That is what i would do if i purchased tickets for Saturday. The RFL issue bans to players then when threatened with legal action reverse the verdict

I mean it says it there in black and white, clear as crystal. "The decision of the... Appeals Tribunal shall be final and binding".

You get no second chances, you get nothing, you lose. Good Day Sir.

… hence the requirement for new evidence. Leeds have used the same process twice which they couldn’t do with your interpretation.

I’m not saying it’s a good system, or particularly defendable in any way. I’m just saying that the suggestions that the process has been changed in some way is nonsense. This is incompetence not conspiracy…

Sorry but if you're just going to keep on making the same incorrect point about Leeds appealing appeals there's really no merit in continuing to discuss this with you.

I'm not a leeds fan. Used to admire Saints but no longer. The incident was a deliberate foul action by Knowles which could so easily have broken an opponents arm or dislocated his shoulder - a disgrace that his ban has been overturned.
"Integrity" and the "RFL disciplinary committee" should no longer be mentioned in the same sentence.
Shame on you, RFL.

100% agree Saints will probably win their 4 in a row but that legacy has been forever tarnished now. Games should be won on the pitch not in corners whispering in peoples ears offering threats or worse incentives to change the rules in your favour!

Not going will stop you watching the great player Knowles is. Don't cut your nose of to spite your face.

I don’t think it’s corruption, just incompetence of the highest order. For a start I think they’re too incompetent to be corrupt…