Barrie’s Glass Eye wrote:I think they’re more incompetent than bias.
I’m not sure how many frivolous additional bans there’s been, but I think we’ve only won one appeal all year. I’m not sure how much other teams have contested bans. But for the the whole idea of adding bans after one has been given out is mad. Surely there should be a right to appeal and if you can point to even a shred of mitigation (in this case the player falling into the tackle) then it isn’t frivolous.
You can say it’s not strong enough evidence to overturn.
But it’s not frivolous.
I also agree with the idea we should only be banning acts of foul play, not accidents. I’m pretty sure Union has a wording of ‘It is a rugby incident’ when someone’s head just ends up the wrong place or a player falls into the tackle. Maybe we need something similar.
In football iirc correctly the ‘frivolous’ thing was brought in because clubs were appealing, knowing an appeal would delay a player missing a game and sometime allow them to appear in a key fixture they would missed had they just taken the ban..
They were calculated appeals , with little chance of actual success, but tactically delayed a suspension.
That isn’t happening here, the clubs have nothing to gain from appealing , and sure they should be free to do so without fear of further penalty.
