Indeed; they could define a model for a points deduction (eg 3 points plus whatever was gained in the match).

Batley have been deducted 3 points

3 points deducted.

We will also be appealing the decision according to the club website.

www.doncasterrugbyleague.co.uk/a ... l-decision

www.doncasterrugbyleague.co.uk/a ... l-decision

And this is where the games begin; now we have a situation where Batley are essentially in the same position as if the game never happened, where as we are two points worse off

you,ve been robbed here you gain a point and lose 3 batley win 3 and lose 3 so in theory you boys are 2pts worse off could make a difference in you finishing 4th or 5th

Bad news but not unexpected.

But in fairness the clubs should have lost any points gained in the respective matches.

So in theory we have lost 2pts from another match where we didn't do anything wrong,
as we didn't even win that match in question

agree jemmo what a farce, whatever they did to Donny Batley should have got 2 points more.I fail to see how this decision is fair, where batley in effect have lost nothing while you are 2 points worse off

My prediction with regards to what the RFL would do if the teams were found guilty was that Batley and Donny would have lost all points gained in the match in question, plus a further penalty on top.

I was expecting them to impose a six point deduction for Batley and four point deduction for us. I'm surprised at the three and three decision.

Personally, I would have deducted one point from the Dons, deducted three points from Batley, and given both clubs a fine suspended for 12 months, only payable if a further breach occurred.

I would award Sheffield three points as they lost the game against Batley. Did I really say that I'd give the Eagles something?



It seems rather odds that two clubs fell foul of the rules. I would like to know whether the RFL had reminded clubs of the position prior to transfer deadline day, and clarified any points the clubs may have had before that weekend's games.

I appreciate each club must take responsibility for their own actions but with the Dons appealing against the decision, I wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye?

Agree with everyone - a very poorly thought out decision.

I concede it's difficult to award Sheffield the points - suppose they finish a point behind Dewsbury. They might validly claim that they might have beaten Batley had Fairbank not played, finished above Dewsbury and - crucially - earned a big wedge of extra funding for 2015.

On the other hand, give them the two points and Dewsbury might claim that Batley might have won anyway.

The loss of funding dwarfs the fines usually handed out for this sort of admin error in the past and it affects teams who haven't been at fault.

Agree that Batley have done really well out of it, though. No worse off than losing the game in the first place.

Risky. As they say on the investment adverts, points can go down as well as up.

I agree...part of me thinks we should take this on the chin and move on

As far as the implications go for the league table, after our three point deduction, we're three points ahead of Dewsbury but have a worse points difference.

Dewsbury play Batley A, Keighley H, and Workington A.

We play Rochdale A, Halifax H, Batley H.

Me too.

The RFL have once again proved that they move in mysterious ways in arriving at their conclusions and knowing them it'll probably go from bad to worse.

Leave it alone and concentrate on getting enough points to ensure we finish 4th (at worst).

They are making it up on the hoof and are s (I overheard someone say).
Clubs going into admin only get a small multiple of that and that clearly is a deliberate action.
Fielding an ineligible player is clearly a mistake and based on ignorance or misunderstanding.
A slap on the wrist for first offence and a ton of pain for any second offence.
Simples!

There is no point in an appeal to pricks.

Some years ago I was made aware that the Rl was not too be trusted. I have kept my silence over that issue but this ruling does nothing to alter that opinion. Why is it that sport in our Town has to be so bloody frustrating. There are many opinions on club Doncaster but this just strengthens the resolve IMO. Come on Doncaster the Town needs a real boost and in the current set up I have more than enough faith.

There appears to be regular variations in RFL decisions. Similar offences get totally different punishments!
Unless there is substantial evidence, which should have been made in our submission, I think we have no hope of any reduction.

Reading between the lines of the club statement it seems we checked with the rfl before the game and were given the impression we had permission to play Crooks, so while I agree in principal we should appeal, like others, I am concerned with how this will go. Also as has been mentioned the two punishments being identical hardly seems fair.

I'm surprised that some are surprised, this is the rfl we are talking about, they couldn't run a bath.

Why would you get that impression?
The rules are clear:-

[iB3:17 Dual Registered Players who have a Salary Cap Value of £20,000 or more i.e. those who receive a category A, B, C or D classification, must have played in at least three League or League Cup fixtures for the Championships club that season before the end of season registration deadline which applies in that Competition in order to play in games which fall after that deadline whether they be regular season or Play Off games.
Dual Registered Players who switch over to a Loan Agreement following the end of season registration deadline must have played in at least three games of the regular season in order to be eligible for the Play Offs.[/i

If you thought that someone at the other end of the phone was telling you this rule didn't apply, a responsible club official should have GOT IT IN WRITING that it was ok for the DR player to be selected. You wouldn't have got it in writing though as it wouldn't have been signed off. It was your risk relying on what, it appears, you thought a junior member of staff said on the phone.




Why? As soon as the match kicks off and you have an ineligible player on the pitch, the offence has been committed. The result of the match is irrelevant.

I got that impression because that is what the statement implies as it says

'Whilst we do not dispute Ben played in the game, based on communications and dialogue we have had with the RFL prior to the player participating in the game we are disappointed with the outcome of the hearing and the punishment that has been provided.'

And the two point deductions being identical is not fair as Batley have been reduced to what they would have been had they forfeited the match so they have lost all match points for that match, with no extra punishment. However we have lost all match points plus two more meaning unlike Batley we are worse off than if we had forfeited the game. Thus we have effectively been given a harsher punishment for the same offence, which is not fair.

As soon as the match kicks off and you have an ineligible player on the pitch, the offence has been committed. The result of the match is irrelevant.'"

All points ok to be made.

But the RFL has to have, so far as possible, clear rules with clear penalties for breaking the laid down rules, ie effectively 'cheating'.

We all now know that the penalty for breaking this DR rule (which relates to the league competition) is 3 points deducted. Now quite clear - a consistent penalty.

It's just like cases of clubs going into Administration ie. Cheating by playing players you couldn't really afford. The RFL just imposes a 9 point deduction. They can't start trawling through the results of every game the club that went into Administration played and deduct points depending on whether the club won, drew, lost each match or got a bonus point. They certainly can't require all the matches to be replayed with a team the club can afford.

Just same in this case of breaching the DR rules. You could say the relevant matches should be expunged from the record and replayed. But that's not the decision. The RFL decided upon a practical and consistent penalty. Just like for opponents who have lost matches against a club that went into Administration at some point later in the season - it's tough luck. That's life.

That's why the Dons appeal is doomed to fail (assuming it's based on 'it's not fair Batley won so should be docked 3 points but we only got a bonus point so should only be docked 1'). It won't wash.

The penalty for breaching the DR rules is now clear and consistent: 3 points docked. All clubs now have to live with it.

Suggest all Championship clubs follow Dewsbury's and Keighley's lead and set a policy of no longer using DR at all. Super League clubs should be required to run their own A team, under 23 team or whatever. If there has to be DR, SL clubs should only be allowed to DR with Championship 1 clubs.

Perhaps the RFL when deciding on the DR scheme should have stated amongst the many rules " the penalty for any breach will be a 3 point deduction " and no it's not with the benefit of hindsight it's poor management and the result of a hastily thought out scheme.