Have I stumbled onto a different thread ?

Thought this post was about miloudl,not people's spitting habits!

Imagine all those signs having to be changed. MILOUDING IS PROHIBITED.

What was the outcome of the charge against him?

Nothing, it's all gone very quiet. Maybe he's back in France at the moment.

Nothing mentioned about his disciplinary from the Doncaster end either .

So spitting is worse than punching. If is grade f then it's worse than fighting, cannonball tackles, chicken wings, head shots etc etc.

I've never seen someone who was spat at on crutches.

Ridiculous if that disciplinary grading is true.

They constantly spit as their body is trying to get as much oxygen is as possible and wants to clear the airway.

They aren't thinking.....I'll have a quick gob...that'll look good on the Tele.

sometimes with grade e charges they wait a week or two before hearing the case or passing sentence

Its a habit and nothing to do with clearing the airway

Breaking News: Hakim Miloudi has had his sending off against Newcastle dismissed. Posted on Twitter earlier today.

I was there & am in shock !

Thanks for that Doc. I'll stop clearing all the phlegm off my chest then, and when I pop my clogs because I can't breathe I'll remember your wise words.

Any reason given for it being dropped?

Very bizarre!

SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 14th September, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(i) during the above Match. The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 77th minute of the above Match. You were dismissed following the incident. In the Panel’s opinion, you spat at your opponent. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary and were against the spirit of the game. In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade F offence (Spitting). If found to have committed the offence, again in accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the minimum suspension for such offence is an 8 match suspension. In addition the Tribunal has the power to impose such fine as it considers reasonable.

SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:

Player represented by CEO Carl Hall and also available on the phone. Pleads not guilty on behalf of player. The evidence provided by the officials and the player are inconsistent in that they all contain incorrect information. The player did no spit at the opponent at any time. There was a collision between the two players that is accepted. There was a confrontation where the player was pushed to the ground and there was a verbal altercation using obscene language. The player was angry at the language used towards him and reacted by demonstrating towards the opponent with his arms and head. Player spoken to on the phone and denies spitting at the opponent. Player has a good previous record and never been the subject of any disciplinary matters.

DECISION:

Not Guilty

REASON FOR DECISION:

This tribunal are satisfied that this is an extremely serious case and has serious consequences for the player. The tribunal have considered three reports from the officials at the game and also and from the player who made the allegation. Two of the Officials gave evidence on the phone to the tribunal as did the player himself. This tribunal wish to make it clear that they have been disturbed by the quality of the evidence put before them. Having watched the DVD the tribunal have the suspicion that there was a spit but they have to be comfortably satisfied taking into account all the evidence put before them. The tribunal have heard the submissions made by the players representative and also the players explanation of what occurred. As a result of the quality of evidence this tribunal are not comfortably satisfied that the player is guilty of this charge and dismiss the case against him.

SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION

The MRP are concerned about this incident. The player chases a kick, he is dummied by receiving player and makes contact with another opponent. The player is pushed to the ground. He then can be seen to pull his head back and then move forcefully forward and spits towards the opponent. Other players run into the situation and a melee ensues. The player rears his head back and spits towards the opponent and the three officials are all consistent with their account of what they saw, as it the opponent. It is accepted there are inconsistences but the key issue – the evidence of spitting – is consistent by all officials and the opposing player. The DVD evidence also supports the act of spitting.

SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION

Player has good previous disciplinary record.

HAKIM MILOUDI - DONCASTER
DONCASTER V NEWCASTLE - SUPER 8S
RANGE OF RECOMMENDED SANCTIONS IN RELATION TO CHARGED GRADE* :

8+ or period suspension

DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF :

Rule – 15.1(i) Detail – Spitting Grade – F

DECISION:

Charge

INCIDENT:

Spitting in the 77th minute

PLEA:

Not Guilty

SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:

Following a Match Review Panel meeting held on 14th September, you are charged with misconduct for a breach of Law 15.1(i) during the above Match. The Panel reviewed an incident which occurred in approximately the 77th minute of the above Match. You were dismissed following the incident. In the Panel’s opinion, you spat at your opponent. The Panel believed that your actions were unnecessary and were against the spirit of the game. In accordance with the RFL’s On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the Panel consider that such offence is a Grade F offence (Spitting). If found to have committed the offence, again in accordance with the On Field Sentencing Guidelines, the minimum suspension for such offence is an 8 match suspension. In addition the Tribunal has the power to impose such fine as it considers reasonable.

SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE CHARGE / EVIDENCE:

Player represented by CEO Carl Hall and also available on the phone. Pleads not guilty on behalf of player. The evidence provided by the officials and the player are inconsistent in that they all contain incorrect information. The player did no spit at the opponent at any time. There was a collision between the two players that is accepted. There was a confrontation where the player was pushed to the ground and there was a verbal altercation using obscene language. The player was angry at the language used towards him and reacted by demonstrating towards the opponent with his arms and head. Player spoken to on the phone and denies spitting at the opponent. Player has a good previous record and never been the subject of any disciplinary matters.

DECISION:

Not Guilty

REASON FOR DECISION:

This tribunal are satisfied that this is an extremely serious case and has serious consequences for the player. The tribunal have considered three reports from the officials at the game and also and from the player who made the allegation. Two of the Officials gave evidence on the phone to the tribunal as did the player himself. This tribunal wish to make it clear that they have been disturbed by the quality of the evidence put before them. Having watched the DVD the tribunal have the suspicion that there was a spit but they have to be comfortably satisfied taking into account all the evidence put before them. The tribunal have heard the submissions made by the players representative and also the players explanation of what occurred. As a result of the quality of evidence this tribunal are not comfortably satisfied that the player is guilty of this charge and dismiss the case against him.

SUMMARY OF CM'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION

The MRP are concerned about this incident. The player chases a kick, he is dummied by receiving player and makes contact with another opponent. The player is pushed to the ground. He then can be seen to pull his head back and then move forcefully forward and spits towards the opponent. Other players run into the situation and a melee ensues. The player rears his head back and spits towards the opponent and the three officials are all consistent with their account of what they saw, as it the opponent. It is accepted there are inconsistences but the key issue – the evidence of spitting – is consistent by all officials and the opposing player. The DVD evidence also supports the act of spitting.

SUMMARY OF PLAYER'S SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION

Player has good previous disciplinary record.

If that is the case, how the chuff have they found him not guilty??!!

Disciplinary NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE .

Inconsistencies in the reporting from officials and the accusing player making it all unclear. Would imagine they were advised by a suit that a guilty verdict could see them facing some sort of defamation case, given how serious the punishment would need to be and the affect it would have on the accused.

Sounds like he's been a lucky boy. Let's hope he doesn't get into a similar situation in the future. Anyway we'll probably get a glimpse of him at the World Cup in OZ www.hullfc.com/news/2017-10-03-m ... -cup-squad

Sounds like he's been a lucky boy. Let's hope he doesn't get into a similar situation in the future. Anyway we'll probably get a glimpse of him at the World Cup in OZ www.hullfc.com/news/2017-10-03-m ... -cup-squad

That was the match review panel's opinion, not what the tribunal concluded.

Either way, I think he's been a very lucky young man and I hope Radders has given him the scarlet warning never to do it again!

Sounds like the only one he said he didn't spit was the player himself and they believed him. I would of thought that if the video wasn't clear then they'd go with the officials call.

On a side note, how did he get a vote in the Man of steel awards, didn't think he was your player til next year. He voted for Gigot as well!!!!

Pretty sure FC signed him after his three game trial. He was excellent in the Saints under 23 clash at Ionians.

Seen him at Donny , shows plenty of potential . Think he will be targeted by opposition players though .