Cullen should resign or be sacked simple as that!

Mellor has come out as well and said it wasn't a penalty let alone a ban, and expressed his empathy to Martin.

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.

Harry is named in the 21!

... Though I'd be surprised to see him in the 17

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.

Quote ArthurClues="ArthurClues"What's hilarious is that Paul Cullen even heads the committee. He was the definition of "old school enforcer" as I remember him. Talk about poacher turned gamekeeper.'" What do you think he'd give himself for this bit of blindside s***housery? https://youtu.be/Pug17-ZSDrQ?t=82

Quote ArthurClues="ArthurClues"What's hilarious is that Paul Cullen even heads the committee. He was the definition of "old school enforcer" as I remember him. Talk about poacher turned gamekeeper.'" What do you think he'd give himself for this bit of blindside s***housery? https://youtu.be/Pug17-ZSDrQ?t=82

The only frivolity I can see here is Paul Cullen's appointment as panel chair, at least based on the evidence of his playing career, in addition to several incomprehensible decisions of the panel this year.

IMO an ex-referee or administrator without strong connections to any of the clubs would make a lot more sense to head this panel than an ex-player with a reputation for foul play during his playing career.

Quote flipper="flipper":lol: What do you think he'd give himself for this bit of blindside s***housery? https://youtu.be/Pug17-ZSDrQ?t=82'" Brilliant, certainly wasn’t hand bags at ten paces in those days.

Quote flipper="flipper":lol: What do you think he'd give himself for this bit of blindside s***housery? https://youtu.be/Pug17-ZSDrQ?t=82'" Brilliant, certainly wasn’t hand bags at ten paces in those days.

do you mean the minimal and incidental touch on the end of Mellors nose on Martins arm brushing past to make the tackle that broke mellors nose?

Where’s it been stated that Mellor broke his nose?

I've not seen anywhere that it broke? Ask Mellor, he himself Said it wasn't a penalty let alone a ban.

Edit, seen he did break his nose. Still doesn't mean its a ban its pretty easily done with minimal contact like occurred.

That really says it all doesn't it.