Leeds set the precedent for appealing an appeal this season.

Saints are just following in your foot steps

Incorrect. Leeds appealed the addition of an additional match for a "frivoulous" appeal

The issue wasn't about the incident it was about the process. Saint found a hole the process wide enough to drive a bus through. The RFL had no choice but to concede. Why Leeds couldn't do the same for Martin? The only conclusion is the quality of the legal advise both clubs received.

Anyone who has ever had a tribunal with an employee will know you have to have rock solid processes otherwise you will be held to account.

Not only are you going back 14 years you are making an invalid comparison.

Lee Smith was cited for an offense that could have been up to 4 games. It was a far from clear cut incident.

The disciplinary ruled no ban just a fine. There was no appeal. And certainaly no second appeal on a technicallity.

Sal Paradise wrote:The issue wasn't about the incident it was about the process. Saint found a hole the process wide enough to drive a bus through. The RFL had no choice but to concede. Why Leeds couldn't do the same for Martin? The only conclusion is the quality of the legal advise both clubs received. Anyone who has ever had a tribunal with an employee will know you have to have rock solid processes otherwise you will be held to account. Not sure that's entirely accurate. The only account is Rod Studds.... https://twitter.com/Rod_Studd/status/1572884139983896577?s=20&t=_bvyUSGoQCkKZ10LIijvKg The technicality is "Now this is where it gets interesting. In the summation the judge apparently said the panel agreed with the MRP verdict but accepted the opponent’s arm stayed in a natural range. Saints saw this a contradiction + contended the appeal verdict should be thrown out."

Sal Paradise wrote:The issue wasn't about the incident it was about the process. Saint found a hole the process wide enough to drive a bus through. The RFL had no choice but to concede. Why Leeds couldn't do the same for Martin? The only conclusion is the quality of the legal advise both clubs received. Anyone who has ever had a tribunal with an employee will know you have to have rock solid processes otherwise you will be held to account. Not sure that's entirely accurate. The only account is Rod Studds.... https://twitter.com/Rod_Studd/status/1572884139983896577?s=20&t=_bvyUSGoQCkKZ10LIijvKg The technicality is "Now this is where it gets interesting. In the summation the judge apparently said the panel agreed with the MRP verdict but accepted the opponent’s arm stayed in a natural range. Saints saw this a contradiction + contended the appeal verdict should be thrown out."

That is absolutely pathetic, Id be embarrassed to punish that mess, they've had hours to come up with it as well.

I don't blame saints in any of this but the RFL are basically admitting to being incompetent.

Don't think the club should even comment until after the game but after that we should come out really strongly. You only have to read the RFL Twitter feed to understand how poorly this has been handled. Put aside the opinions of Leeds and Saints fans (many who also believed a ban was justified) and the volume of comment from neutrals shows how big a PR disaster this has become for the sport. Going into a world cup which should be the pinnacle of the sport RL looks bereft of leadership and is a laughing stock. Who is actually running the sport. Nobody actually does interviews its just faceless people releasing statements. Let Ralph Rimmer and Paul Cullen come out on sky and answer questions. Many might disagree with their answers or explanations but at the moment I have seen under 11 leagues better organised and run.

Minutes are now available... https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... inutes.pdf Essentially Saints argued that unless the arm is in an "unnatural position" there can't be an "unacceptable risk" of injury. Seems chicken wings are now fair game as long as no injury results...

Minutes are now available... https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... inutes.pdf Essentially Saints argued that unless the arm is in an "unnatural position" there can't be an "unacceptable risk" of injury. Seems chicken wings are now fair game as long as no injury results...

That is nonsensical. The original tribunal believed the player had to move his trunk to avoid injury because of pressure applied by Knowles, but because the player moved his trunk to avoid injury and keep his shoulder within the natural range of motion, Knowles was not reckless in applying the pressure?

This is the equivalent of arguing that a person can drive the wrong way down a road and if people successfully swerve to avoid them, they have not committed an offence.

the paragraph is not even coherently drafted. What an embarrassment.

Omar Little wrote:Minutes are now available... https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... inutes.pdf Essentially Saints argued that unless the arm is in an "unnatural position" there can't be an "unacceptable risk" of injury. Seems chicken wings are now fair game as long as no injury results... Essentially Saints argued that unless the arm is in an "unnatural position" there can't be an "unacceptable risk" of injury. Seems chicken wings are now fair game as long as no injury results...[/quote] Yup, that's about it. So if the opponent had 1% less strength in his shoulder/arm this would have been a terrible "tackle". Good job Knowles went into the tackle knowing the exact strength of his opponent's shoulder. I thought a large part of any foul play tribunal & punishment was INTENT. He was putting undue & excess pressure on a joint at an unnatural angle. He had no idea how effectively the opponent could resist.

Omar Little wrote:Minutes are now available... https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... inutes.pdf Essentially Saints argued that unless the arm is in an "unnatural position" there can't be an "unacceptable risk" of injury. Seems chicken wings are now fair game as long as no injury results... Essentially Saints argued that unless the arm is in an "unnatural position" there can't be an "unacceptable risk" of injury. Seems chicken wings are now fair game as long as no injury results...[/quote] Yup, that's about it. So if the opponent had 1% less strength in his shoulder/arm this would have been a terrible "tackle". Good job Knowles went into the tackle knowing the exact strength of his opponent's shoulder. I thought a large part of any foul play tribunal & punishment was INTENT. He was putting undue & excess pressure on a joint at an unnatural angle. He had no idea how effectively the opponent could resist.