That's how I read it, an old quote by LR added to a crazy theory.

Kelly was charged on Thursday the 6th February, at a tribunal for Championship and Reserve grades.

If the hearing was after the derby, then why didn’t he play?

He would have be eligible. Not picked again?

…. because the derby was on Friday 7th February, after the hearing by my reckoning.

So not "not picked again".

so he wasn't suspended or not picked? that doesn't make sense...?

sounds to me like someone at the club has dropped a bollock not knowing the rules.

had Radford been informed then its quite possible kelly would have been on the bench for the HKR game.

That’s what I thought when he answered me ?

His response doesn’t make sense !?

It's a blumin good job we beat Rovers, otherwise there would be being a witch hunt. Whatever happened, I hope lessons have been learnt.

I don't see how that can be the case. As per the operational rules the ban is effective from the day of the hearing. If he is indeed still banned, it has to be because of the reserves stuff that was mentioned previously on the thread.



There still hasn't been any mention of any of this from the club yet.

Surely hes either banned for any games so the rovers one would be included or hes only banned for reserve games so why cant he play first team? Ridiculous from the rfl as ever.



I cant see how the rovers game cant be included. If he was available to play that game then surely hes available for any first grade game?

It's your original post that doesn't make sense (wrong is more accurate), the hearing was NOT after the derby.

SOL missing for Wigan, but his replacement Smithies is one hell of a player, Yorkshire lad as well. I hope the confusion over Albert is resolved in our favour, but it looks like he’s out for this game.

Smithies would have played anyway wouldn't he?