Hull surely need to appeal. I was at the game, and have watched the incidents back a few times. Nothing in them. I’d be severely brassed off if it was a Cas player with a ban for those. The McShane one nothing there at all, the Clarke one just one of those unfortunate things that can happen in a tackle.
caslad75 wrote:Hull surely need to appeal. I was at the game, and have watched the incidents back a few times. Nothing in them. I’d be severely brassed off if it was a Cas player with a ban for those. The McShane one nothing there at all, the Clarke one just one of those unfortunate things that can happen in a tackle.
Whilst we all agree with you there is not a chance an appeal would get the player off. Can you imagine if on appeal the charges were dropped how that would reflect on the original panel and the conflict then in the RFL. We know they are biased and in this case not fit for purpose but the best we could get if the club do appeal is a reduction of one match.
You’d hope the rfl becomes obsolete and the super league chairman can take control then all this might finally get sorted once and for all, or have I got it massively wrong
If I have, then what’s the solution to this incompetence
Joined: Jan 30 2004 Posts: 8221 Location: Never never land away with the fairies
bonaire wrote:Whilst we all agree with you there is not a chance an appeal would get the player off. Can you imagine if on appeal the charges were dropped how that would reflect on the original panel and the conflict then in the RFL. We know they are biased and in this case not fit for purpose but the best we could get if the club do appeal is a reduction of one match.
Works for Wigan and O'Loughlin
I really enjoy long walks especially when they are taken by people I don't like!
It's a strange system, you are found guilty with no option to defend yourself, and are then threatened with an increased penalty if you have the audacity to appeal the decision.
Is Hodgson the new Griffin, or is it all about pace?
dboy wrote:I don't understand. Hull didn't contest the charges and therefore have no right of appeal.
Taylor was found guilty and given a 1+2 match ban. The club/player were then informed of the outcome. The club then had the option to contest the decision.
In a normal court of law, you defend yourself before a verdict is given.
dboy wrote:I don't understand. Hull didn't contest the charges and therefore have no right of appeal.
Taylor was found guilty and given a 1+2 match ban. The club/player were then informed of the outcome. The club then had the option to contest the decision.
In a normal court of law, you defend yourself before a verdict is given.
Joined: Oct 12 2005 Posts: 4242 Location: Barnsley
That's not how it works.
1 The charge and the scope of the penalty is announced. 2 The club notifies the RFL if they are contesting the charge and the hearings are held on Tuesdays (for SL). 3 If the guilty, the club can appeal (which is where a penalty can go up as well as down).
Hull FC did not contest the charges, so the penalty notice stands unopposed.
Joined: Oct 12 2005 Posts: 4242 Location: Barnsley
From the RFL's Twitter - "There are no disciplinary cases to be heard tonight. The players issued with penalty notices yesterday (Super League) and last Thursday (Championship) have accepted the imposed penalty notices."
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
