The appeals process is, like the rest of the RFL disciplinary process, a crock of shoite. IMO, if an appeal is unsuccessful, the player should automatically get an extra game's ban. That would stop speculative appeals like these. Was stuart fielden involved on the panel again by any chance?
Jake the Peg wrote:The appeals process is, like the rest of the RFL disciplinary process, a crock of shoite. IMO, if an appeal is unsuccessful, the player should automatically get an extra game's ban. That would stop speculative appeals like these. Was stuart fielden involved on the panel again by any chance?
I fairly sure that's what use to happen with failed appeals . Don't know when this was changed .
Jake the Peg wrote:The appeals process is, like the rest of the RFL disciplinary process, a crock of shoite. IMO, if an appeal is unsuccessful, the player should automatically get an extra game's ban. That would stop speculative appeals like these. Was stuart fielden involved on the panel again by any chance?
I guess you thought the same when Tickle had a 2 match ban reduced to 1, which he then served missing a 9s match
Jake the Peg wrote:The appeals process is, like the rest of the RFL disciplinary process, a crock of shoite. IMO, if an appeal is unsuccessful, the player should automatically get an extra game's ban. That would stop speculative appeals like these. Was stuart fielden involved on the panel again by any chance?
I guess you thought the same when Tickle had a 2 match ban reduced to 1, which he then served missing a 9s match
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum