Eh? So our (correct and upheld) appeal of a (non-frivolous) appeal outcome is cynical but Leeds appeals of appeal outcomes deemed frivolous is not cynical?

Is the cynicism that we actually were acknowledged as having grounds for our appeals? So only appeals with no grounds like Leeds are not cynical?

Saints would nuke a country if it meant they got a precious title win.

Finally someone finds something genuinely comparable with a player grabbing a players wrist to slow a PTB.

The reality for me is that Knowles is a flat track bully anyway and I personally wouldn't pick him over Cameron Smith.

Same goes for Welsby vs Myler.

Welsby is a real talent - Knowles I agree with you

Welsby is a great talent if he can keep hold of his temper…

You lot still going on about Knowles? Good grief.
Don’t worry I reckon every 50/50 call will go your way tomorrow in an attempt to atone for the events of this week.

Never read as much reactionary nonsense in my life as I have seen on this thread.

St Helens fans continuing to conflate entirely different situations to cover up their unease at what's happened tells us all we need to know.

Leeds followed the appeals process.

St Helens nuked the process. And a player who hasn't been found not guilty will play when he should still be banned.

You do realise that all you need to do is replace "nuked the process" with "had a valid appeal upheld" to make yourself sound a bit daft?

And he has been found not guilty of the charge he faced. That's literally the whole point my man. The charge relied on his actions causing an unacceptable risk of injury and that was disproved. You can call it a technicalilty if you want, but all (non-frivolous) appeals wil be based on the technicalities of the charge vs the actions of the player. That is the entire point of it.

Saints also followed the process. The process allows for the appeal that Saints made and was upheld. Both sides have followed the appeals process this year but it appears only one actualy understands it.