He was invoking the Standard Leeds Exemption (see RFL Operational Rules, section headed "Standard Over-Arching Leeds Exemption". The relevant clause is just after the one that gives Leeds blanket exemption from forward passes, but before the one requiring refs to turn a blind eye to offsides following a penalty kick at goal.

Apparently the holiday relief on the Appeals Committee were not au fait with this wide section of the OR, and there will be hell to pay now.

I would presume that the appeal was on similar grounds to the defence on the day of the initial hearing. The defence, however, being fundamentally flawed as it stated that the definition of reckless is intentional when, in fact, the RFL guidelines specify quite the opposite.

"In showing that a person has acted recklessly the Compliance Manager need not show that the person intended or wished for a particular result to occur."

I fully agree with them upping the ban or fining more when someone appeals, if in the opinion of the panel, the appeal was stupid.

It discourages teams from appealing almost every time, whether they feel the punishment was correct or not, just on the off chance it gets thrown out.

If someone gets what they deserved, clubs and players should just accept it rather than wasting the time and money of the RFL just in case they can get it canned.

I've certainly noticed that one club in particular seems to appeal almost every time they get a ban. I won't name them, but I'd noticed it a while ago, so would like to see more of this happening.

(And it isn't limited to this sport. Rio Ferdinand got an extra match added to his football ban because he appealed when he clearly had no right to, just so that he could delay the ban and play in the League Cup Final).