Call the lawyers?

You've got two guys with awful disciplinary records and you wouldn't put it passed either of them to do the above.

Kear seems adamant Flanagans innocent though. Considering how strong he was on Lilley for his challenge, when he could have had every excuse on the books for that "he's not that type player"
"it was just other enthusiasm"
"mistimed after so long out"


But Kear was really strong in condemning Lilley, rightly so as protecting late challenge on HBs is something the refs/RFL have just let carrying on in the last few years. I just find it hard to believe Kear would be so harsh on Lilley, then defend Flanagan of he even thought for a moment he was guilty.

That's not to say Flanagan is innocent. I genuinely don't know. But as others have said it doesn't sit well with me. As Bullseye said his last incident probably counted against him and may even have been a deciding factor (no matter what the disciplinary say) and for that he has no one to blame but himself.

Totally agree with the comments on here, in contrast to the Facebook pages which seem to be largely supporting him claiming "lack of evidence". I was dismayed when JK gave him another contract after all his previous antics. A disgrace to the club which hardly needs another reason to be given grief. Whilst a team can benefit from having a player who gets up the oppositions noses (my mate called him "a pound shop Jimmy Lowes") Flanagan takes it way too far and is a liability. If we continue to stick by him it's another reason for me to lose interest. My heroes are those who played the toughest game in a fair but hard manner - Jeff Grayshon, Roy Powell and the like.

Agree completely. After this most recent disciplinary issue we should be saying goodbye to Flanagan at the end of the season.

This is a bit of an eye opener for me. This incident will end (and probably define) a players career. There’s no conclusive video evidence either way. And it comes down to one persons word vs the other. There has to be more balance of proof than that.
And take a sodding lawyer next time.

Caisly wasn't available

It doesn’t sound clear cut to me from the written reasons.

What I can’t work out is why the panel state that “no reason was suggested” as to why Bussey would make it up. But they go on to suggest a reason themselves in terms of why Bussey might have made a comment to Flanagan afterwards.

Surely the panel should ask for Bussey’s reasons, not guess the reason themselves?

First time I've read through this and I am definitely not a Flanagan fan but...

Isn't English Law is based on the burden of proof being on the accuser and in this you can't even begin to think Bussey/RFL have proved beyond reasonable doubt he did it.

Still, more evidence of being the RFL pets.

Flanagan's response: https://twitter.com/Georgeflanagan9/sta ... 41/photo/1

Flanagan's response: https://twitter.com/Georgeflanagan9/sta ... 41/photo/1

If you believe Flanagan then the question you have to ask is why Bussey feels so strongly about Flanagan that he would go to such great lengths to invent an attack to the knackers. What's the history behind that?