Fred_Pickup wrote:Definition of frivolous:
Unworthy of serious attention; trivial.
Inappropriately silly.
Of little weight or importance; not worth notice; slight.
I wonder how the panel of experts view our appeal in the context of the above.
I feel it more appropriately defines the panel itself, which is sad, given that the main objective must be the exact opposite - to reduce foul play, protect players from serious injury, clamp down on serial offenders and stand as a body respected by players, clubs and supporters.
I feel for Leeds, and more to the point Martin, nevr a ban in my eyes.
I do have to wonder, however, are Leeds as a club actually any good at appealing? Are they just getting it all wrong?
It's difficult isn't it - you either appeal and plead not guilty, which is problematic because there was contact with the head. Or you appeal against the ban, which is problematic as it's Grade A and Martin has been banned previously (setting aside the merits of said ban). Is the frivolous aspect the fact that Leeds have essentiallly pled not guilt when he makes contact with the head?
Rightly or wrongly Leeds did not play the Newman situation well and all that public (pointless and in my view incorrect) criticism of the disciplinary over that incident wasn't a particularly strategic response.
