Way some people are going on you are Gary Schofield as you by 8

Beyond the fact it was blatantly putting undue pressure on a joint?

I’m more interested as to what evidence can be put forward and not deemed frivolous apart from proving it didn’t happen (which it clearly did) because Leeds seemed to have tried this approach, comparing to other incidents etc, and twice been slapped with the extra frivolous ban, despite Rohan clearly outlining all the steps the club went through before appealing.

To be quite honest I now think my biggest issue with it all is the word frivolous, which suggests the club just through out an appeal based on no evidence whatsoever, which we are on record as saying wasn’t the case.

Simple hes in the England squad

Not the ban the appeal

As I said, at least twice this year Leeds have appealed bans based on the idea of comparing them to other outcomes and bans handed out, or by comparing them to similar incidents, offering mitigation, and at least twice such an appeal has been tagged as frivolous, in part I assume because in both cases there’s no doubt the offence has actual happened.

I assume Saints have taken a similar route, because there is no doubt that Lees did commit an offence, and if they did use similar arguments surely it’s just as frivolous. If they used a different approach it’d be interesting to know how they went about it because hardly anyone has had any joy with appeals and often it’s been made worse on appeal.

I am not sure how solid your assumption is about the route Saints took. What I do know is we paid a legal firm quite a bit of money at the start of the year to build a framework for working with the MRP and seemingly it has been money well spent, given we have had a number of successful challenges this year, and no frivolous penalties.

I guess the problem is that appealing based on others getting away with it is not actually challenging whether the offence actually took place. If I were to guess, I suspect Saints appeal would have been based around the charge of dangerous contact, arguing it wasnt dangerous.

Leeds did the same - legal advice, former referees advice. They had almost everything they legitimately raised chucked back at them.

The system as it stands won't last the closed season, we can be pretty sure of that.

I make this post with my legal hat on, that being what I do on a day to day basis. Important to qualify I do not pretend to know the inner workings of the disciplinary panel before I start. The charge, as far as I can see was dangerous contact and it came with a two match ban. This is what appears on the RFL website Incident:
Dangerous Contact

Decision:
Charge
Charge Detail:
Grade B
Sanctions:
2 match penalty notice

The appeal or basis of the appeal isn’t published, or if it is then it doesn’t appear readily available on the RFL disciplinary site at the time I post.

Now if I take the guess from your post, that the appeal was made on the basis it wasn’t dangerous contact. The charge remains in place I.e dangerous contact, the original sanction remains the same I.e 2 match ban. As such I struggle to see how any argument or basis for an appeal has been successful. A separate panel (as I understand it) have decided that the charge was correct and the sanction was correct. So it was dangerous and warranted a two match ban.

Now let me be clear, I have absolutely no problem with appeals, in fact I think every case should be allowed an appeal without risk of further sanction. In particular in play off rounds and in particular grand final week an appeal without further sanction should be the norm. However, those aren’t the rules at the moment and as such Knowles and his appeal should be considered against the current rules, the current frivolous appeal sanctions in place and what has been going on all year and in particular for other cases in the play offs. For that I consider the appeal (not offence) made by Leeds for Martin and his ban.

Now if you appeal on the basis it isn’t dangerous and the charge remains dangerous contact with the same 2 match ban, that appeal has not been successful in any way, shape or form. It appears completely discretionary as to whether that appeal is frivolous or not. I would say the appeal was clearly frivolous and given the precedents all year and in the play offs further matches are added.

Again to be clear, I would much rather both sides had all players available, injuries and suspensions are rubbish, especially on the big stage. I would also suggest appeals should not carry further bans, especially if that is purely discretionary. The idea of a fair legal or disciplinary system is to make it fair, easy to follow, transparent and with limited discretionary events. The MRP is not doing very well on that criteria.

Any tan from any club would surely be able to see why a Leeds fan would take the view they are being singled out or the system is biased towards them. In a play off they appeal a ban, it’s deemed frivolous and get a further match. Knowles appeals, his charge and sanction remain the same, so any basis of the appeal cannot have been significantly successful, he also has a generally poorish disciplinary records but the appeal seems to be okay with no problem and no further match added. Now if that is because it’s grand final week fair enough, but publish that rule or direction, make it clear and allow all fans from all clubs the ability to understand the rules and procedures in place.

Anyway enough of all that. Grand final week, glad it is saints we are playing, they have been the best team for 4 years. We have a chance as it’s a grand final but either way hope for a good game. Loads of respect for saints as a club, the youth production etc and hope the team who plays best on the night comes away with the trophy.

Great post

Best of luck Rhinos.