Interesting, would be a nice gesture and you don't really ever see those kind of things in RL. What would his statement contain though? "I wasn't injured, I was just trying to slow the game down so we won?". I think they knew that already. The issue is with the potential for injury, not the reality of it.

The only thing that could get him off now is if Matautia says he made it known to Vaughan verbally he wasn't injured, and was just taking the Mickey.

Imagine the reaction on redvee if he gets let off with the ban..could do with a giggle

..and then scores the winner in the play-offs against them.....they'd end up hounding Matautia out of the third world.

He can just say hey mate give me a pull up I’m knackered.

"hey mate, help me up Vaughny I'm f**ked"

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... -revealed/

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... -revealed/

Reading that he was going to be guilty no matter what was said, their minds already made up before he entered the room.

Knowles was cleared of that because of the contradictory wording of the charge. As trivial as this one is there are no grounds for appealing and i don't see how the RFL could let it go after other players have been banned for it ( that being said the mrp and rfl couldn't organise a up in a brewery,so anything could happen )

So what you are saying is because other players have been banned for said offence that they have to ban him, if only that applied in the law courts the prisons would be full. Not every offence is the same hence some latitude to how sentences are applied but seems the RFL one rule fits all. So eliminating common sense approach.

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/confirme ... ban-82305/

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/confirme ... ban-82305/

Paragraph in there talking about common sense which sadly the RFL lack.

Fair play to Mata'utia for his submission, respect that I can't see us getting any change on our appeal but at least we are backing our player to the hilt.

I believe the Saints club would only allow a brief statement by Matautia to support Vaughan, the Saints club don't trust the disciplinary at all and didn't want Matautia to incriminate himself. It was just a time wasting slow play the ball and they didn't want to give the disciplinary the opportunity to accuse and discipline him for cheating. The disciplinary are just a load of bullocks most of the time.

They have to ban him ( as they did with the others ) because he doesn't know for sure if someone is injured or not,it's as simple as don't drag a player up. That's the rule,it's in no way comparable to law courts so that's not a valid analogy.

We must be top of the pile for bans this season
With 14 for McGuire, 6 for Dudson, now 4 for Vaughan , that’s 24 man-games lost
Apologies to others I can’t think of now

In response to brook40 (sorry, the quote facility appears to be not working), it's the grading system that's wrong here, in my opinion. We all know the kind of incident this rule is aiming to stamp out, and Vaughan's was clearly nothing like one of those. It's obviously a minor incident (if you can even call it that) at the lowest end of the scale for this 'offence', so why make that scale begin at four matches? It just makes the whole process look ridiculous.

So, and apologies if I sound surprised, you’re a Warrington fan?
I suspect I’m not the only one that will take some convincing.

As someone posted on Facebook, Jon Wilkin will be having wet dreams over this banning. As for me i expect him to go on a major rant about it on Sky.

Quote ="thelinesman"As someone posted on Facebook, Jon Wilkin will be having wet dreams over this banning. As for me i expect him to go on a major rant about it on Sky.'" Wilkin thinks it’s a joke of a decision. https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/jon-wilk ... ban-82313/

Quote ="thelinesman"As someone posted on Facebook, Jon Wilkin will be having wet dreams over this banning. As for me i expect him to go on a major rant about it on Sky.'" Wilkin thinks it’s a joke of a decision. https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/jon-wilk ... ban-82313/

Appeal failed, no shock there then.

We’ve battered Vaughan this season - send him for an extended break, we’re not going to get to OT never mind win the league, and have him raring to go in the new year.

RFL disciplinary rule book was written by some kids with crayons 80 years ago.

Middleton comments on the Paul Vaughan ban. The club needed to be more vocal IMHO given the tacit acceptance of the 2nd McGuire ban, when there was no evidence whatsoever. https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... ughan-ban/

Middleton comments on the Paul Vaughan ban. The club needed to be more vocal IMHO given the tacit acceptance of the 2nd McGuire ban, when there was no evidence whatsoever. https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... ughan-ban/

this might be the silliest ban RL has ever seen.