Is that right, Rach?
.
Are we doing it then? I'll definitely have one.

Like it or, it's now a 'fait accompli'.

That said, this sorry affair has led me to take a look at:

'The Operational Rules' (of the game as applied by the RFL).

Having failed to discover any reference to Paul March in respect of the alleged offence in the 'Disciplinary' section of the RFL's website I assumed that, because an appeal was pending, details of his punishment would be published after his appeal hearing. But apparently not.

So what does it say in the Rules of the Game?



and:



So here we have it verbatim from the RFL's own website. It's enough for someone to have 'PROBABLY' said something!

Oh, and just before I leave, I also noticed that someone (?) called 'Boarat' (any relation to 'Borat') is apparently involved! After all, it's in the Rules of the game for all to see! No wonder we have so many strange decisions being made both on and off the field despite the RFL insisting that the Rules are there to provide fairness of competition and a level playing-field (that is as long as you're not playing at Batley or Cougar Park [apologies to Batley, I really do like Mount (un)Pleasant]).

FRIENDLY MATCHES
B3:9A Club shall not play a friendly match (ie, any match other than a Cup Tie, a League Match an Event or a Match in any competition approved by the Boarat any time without receiving the prior written approval of the Board"). The Board's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld and the Board in reaching its decision shall pay due regard to the integrity of the respective competitions and the interests of the Game together with the interests of the Clubs playing Cup Ties or League Matches.


If you don't believe me then check it out for yourselves!

His name appears in the official document in section B3.9

Let's hope that this final decision about something that Paul March might have said spurs the players to great things. 'Don't let the ******** grind you down' to coin a phrase.

Very interesting the last post. I assumed they used the civil burden of proof, i.e. on the balance on probability but the above tends to suggest that it's somewhere between the civil and criminal burdens of proof. Based on that I cannot think how, if someone has come forward to admit the offence, they have upheld the decision. I can only imagine the referee's version of events is gospel and we all know how many mistakes they make on a Sunday afternoon so they are not void of error and mistake. If they take no other factor into consideration what is the point of the tribunal?

Thanks 'Dominance', my very thoughts.

Anyone thought that the RFL just don't want the cougars anywhere
Near the the Superleague ( whatever guise it is in ) ?
There is also the fact that all of the Cumbrian cllubs are either
In or very near the relegation zone ......The RFL wouldn't be happy
If all three Cumbrian teams got relegated would they ????

Just thinking out of the box here , nothing at all would suprise me
Wirh rhe inbeciles at RFL Hq .

So what's the status now?
Is the club taking any legal action against the RFL?
Or are we just rolling over and playing dead?

Harry-Al-Hill has come up trumps on this and elastic bands are being added to 100 substitute Mr Marchy's as we speak

As they would say on Facebook, I like that posting

Great stuff! That will look great at the game.

Sebastien Martins of Crusaders who was sent off post match against us for foul and abusive language towards a match official is submitting an EGP. Gets him down to one game from four I believe.