If the RFL have to prove it and if their previous 'evidence' is all they have then I don't think they can.

The question that needs answering is does Mick have to prove his innocence or do the RFL have to prove his guilt?

This is the RFL we are talking about. What do you think will happen?

My money is on an increase to 3 matches, and he has to be locked in a room with Michael Gove for 4 months.

If he gets off, it will be like OJ Simpson all over again

Why will it?
The RFL can't prove it and they have unintentionally admitted as much themselves. (He apparently said it in the referees personal space according to the disciplinary panel yet the working mic didn't pick it up which surely disproves he said it where they said he did). It would be an open and shut 'not guilty' case anywhere but in red hall.

This is why I asked the question does the player have to prove innocence or do the RFL have to prove guilt?

It does not matter a jot if the RFL want to ban him they will, come on you know any team from hull cop for it don't they

Or this:
[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?1442[/url

Not if they can't and that is the point.

Appeal successful, ban overturned

O J Weyman!

Some good news at last!!!

Hahaha..stick that up yer nose RFL, glad he got off, it also sets a precedence for having to PROVE guilt rather than making a stupid assumption of such on one person's say so.
Still, there's a long way to go to get the disciplinary fit for purpose.

WELL the RFL has got balls after all maybe just maybe they might start to get their act together but I doubt it

therfl.co.uk/news/article/30426/ ... fts-ban-on This weeks refs...no Tim Roby? therfl.co.uk/matchday/match_officials

therfl.co.uk/news/article/30426/ ... fts-ban-on This weeks refs...no Tim Roby? therfl.co.uk/matchday/match_officials

So they couldn't PROVE he did it then.
At least we now know the answer to that question.

I can see Neil having fun in his hearing with the RFL now.

Haha. Even better. Seems the RFL aint happy with Mr Roby. Good to see the panel have a bit of sense, (If only a bit). Should never have got to this without proof! Seems the RFL have a policy that your guilty until proven innocent!

Neil lost his appeal on monday.

There's no way they could uphold the decision once they'd decided that Saint Jamie wouldn't cop a ban.

Wow justice! that's a novelty especially where the RFL are concerned, better enjoy it while it last's and lets hope they don't make us pay for it in another way!

This whole thing stank from the start.


There was no warning no 10 metre penalty no sin bin just straight red. Even for what was alleged to have been said was a joke.

I hope our not so foul mouthed prop got a written apology from the RFL. Looks like Mr Weyman is more professional than some thought.

(I'm waiting for one from Stan now. I do like you Stan(not in a Jake the Peg/roversmad way though)).

I hope Roby never refs again. He's a bearded c##t.

Where did you get that result from?

You won't get a back tracking apology from me, I stand by every word. He got sent off for swearing. He let his team down and should know better.

Just because the rfl are weak and clueless, that doesn't make his actions right.

I bet he had fun though

I thought he'd admitted to saying it just that it was aimed at horne, not the ref? Don;t all refs hate you with a vengence and do everything they can to see you lose every week anyway?

They're the same as the video refs who seem to take an age to make a decision, it's like they are looking for a reason to not give the try. There seems to be a lot of negativity in the game at the moment, most of it caused by those at the top!