Fairly sure campo was the tackler so your argument doesn't hold water. Woof!

To be fair it's french john who has caused it................

Is your claim on what was said by Daryl Powell as accurate as this claim by yourself?
Why does he say that Boudebza is distraught [uwhen one of the reasons the RFL gives for the doubling of the ban is Boudebza's lack of remorse[/u. Why is he remorseful if he thinks he didn't do anything wrong?

When in fact The RFL said “The player is extremely remorseful for the injury caused to the opposing player”

Lock it and move on. You are whipping yourselves up into a hudgell infused frenzy. Nothing will get reversed, the RFL will continue. Rovers fans can keep the chips on their shoulders. No harm done.

Yes it is time to move on. No point having a chip on our shoulders.

So how do we think the !?@*}\~$ will screw us over [inext[/i week?

More seriously, the hanging thread from this is that Hudgell has claimed they inadvertently revealed that the appeal was judged before it was heard. That is very serious. IMO, the RFL need to deny that and charge Hudgell or, if it is true return JB's appeal bond, apologise to him, probably suspend those culpable and assure the RL community that mechanisms are in place to limit the risk of it happening again.

The rest, they can waffle away with 'after careful consideration, in our judgement, etc'. There's always going to be some subjectivity, but you have to be able to put your case before they make up their minds. Otherwise the whole thing is not just a sham, but obviously a sham, and that isn't sustainable.

Tbf when it comes to rovers and hull fc we always seem to get dry ummed with the rfl

No, we really don't.

I think Hull FC get a fair crack with the RFL tbh. What the hell you had to moan about since the Paea incident.

Must just be rovers they hate then. Can't say I they blame them

You are hereby on notice to be dropped from our proper squad for next week's Wakey home game, if you don't behave. I'll tell on ya to Stan.

I only let 4 in down my wing this week

Confirmed in today's League Express that the tribunal saw angles if the incident that have not been publicly released.
Would have been useful for the RFL to make this clear so that everyone knew the decision wasn't based on the footage we all saw, which was clearly inconclusive.

So why be so secret about it? And if so, was our club told about this 'new' evidence? I hope this evidence was sent to our club to assess.

Yes it would. Potentially makes a bit more sense. It'd be interesting to see them, but I doubt we will. Was it a long article? Were any of the other issues around process addressed?

Nonsense.

What League Express actually said was ' The Boudebza tackle didn't look deliberate or reckless however the RFL tribunal members PERHAPS saw angles that wern't available to the rest of us.

RLE goes on to say 'The question is, if Shenton had not been injured and had got up to play the ball would Boudebza's tackle have been put on report with a suspension following? It's hard to believe it would have been.'

I think you need to work on your inference skills! If they didn't have different angles, it wouldn't even have been mentioned.

So your going off a weekly league paper that prints that the rfl disciplinary panel 'perhaps' have an option for looking at a different angle?!.....my god, then it must be true.

You said this was 'Confirmed' in League Express now I have given the actual account you have had to reduce this to 'inference'.

IMO although you have downgraded 'confirmed' to 'inference' the truth is you should downgrade again to 'fiction'.

Martyn Sadler made it quite clear on TalkSport that he thought the Boudebza verdict was a total travesty, the only explanation being if the RFL had unseen footage unseen by anyone else including him.

So the film from the grassy knoll is still to turn up.
As before...it doesn't exist....and as before your either a WUM a Cyclops or it appears now both.

Yeah, that is more of a suggestion than a confirmation. Or maybe even just a backside-covering caveat, which is how I've been using it.

And we're in a grump with inference at the moment.

In fairness to NottsTiger, he shares our view on the evidence available to us not justifying the decision. His theory is internally consistent - that nobody could make that call based on just that evidence, so there must be other evidence. We're just more willing to entertain the notion that the disciplinary committee might not have done its job with competence and/or integrity. If other evidence does turn up, even considering that possibility might look harsh.
Tbh, if there were more compelling evidence it'd be a relief in some ways, for all that it might make my (thoroughly caveated, but still intense) outrage look ridiculous. It isn't nice thinking the system is that flawed.
There's still be the issue of the pre-judged appeal as well, so overall my inference is less optimistic.

I never really understood the 'pre judged' appeal to be honest.
Of course, to some extent, an appeal is always slightly influenced by the fact there must have been a 'guilty' verdict otherwise there wouldn't be an appeal.
However, your chairman seems to be suggesting that the OUTCOME of the appeal was actually decided before the appeal hearing (ie they decided that the ban would stand before the hearing). If this is true, he should have made this the focus of his argument, rather than the more melodramatic statements about Powell and boycotting the return fixture that were always going to look like he was just throwing his teddy out of the cot and having a meltdown.

In other news, according to "rumours" it appears Shenton's injury may not be a serious as first thought. He is going to be out for some time, but about four months rather than the nine originally thought (the injury may not require surgery apparently). I imagine your chairman will be moaning about that next!

So because Shenton's injury is not as serious as first thought then Boudebza's ban should also be reduced. After all the ban is supposed to reflect the seriousness of the injury according to the clowns at Red Hall.

Good point. It hadn't really occurred to me that that could happen... Dangerous from the rfl to set that precendent.

Bit underlined - yep that is my reading of it.

I agree that (based on the evidence available) Rovers issue is with the RFL much, much more than Castleford; with the (seemingly) poor initial decision and (accusations of) serious breaches of process. Powell's bellyaching isn't at all unusual among coaches (our own among them at times over the years) - what is shocking that it [iseems[/i to have such a profound impact. Not his fault if the RFL take his word as law.

I hope Shenton is back on the pitch as soon as possible.