tigerman10 wrote:
from what it says in the cas statement i would say you are bang on with that comment, i thought it was standard practice for the match commisioner to attend any hearing that was relevant to a game he had attended, but seeing as his view did not suit the RLs view he was not required to attend the hearing and it also seems that reading between the lines the RFL atempted to hold the hearing at a time when he would be unable to attend, as i have said earlier in my opinion the matter has been blown out of all proportion, i heard the chanting myself but for anyone who was not at the game and did not hear it you would not think we were talking about the same incident, especially with a 40K fine and the clubs name being dragged through the mud.
Err no. I was simply commenting on the fact that people are suggesting that the decision was made by the RFL (Lewis, Wood, board of directors, general bogeyman) and that a tribunal chaired by a Judge with two other individuals on it free of any club ties just go along with it without bothering with any evidence. It is nonsensical for anyone to think that a Judge would put himself in the position of just being a mouthpiece for others. Instead it is quite common practice in many sports to have quasi-judicial tribunals with members of the judiciary involved so that clubs/sportspeople are given a fair hearing.
As to how the matter arrived at the tribunal it is quite easy to find the operational rules on the RFL website.
As to Cas' statement on the appeal, good luck to them if they think they have a case (albeit my reading of their statement is that they loused up their defence)