While its a bit daft to appeal an obvious ban like Bentley, the panel needs to avoid giving the impression that any appeal could lead to an increase. An increase is either an admission they were wrong in the first penalty, and/or a punitive response for daring to ask them to review a decision. Appealing a ban ought to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you think you've got a case - the default outcome of appeals ought to be no change. To stop spurious appeals make the appealing club pay costs if the ban is upheld/increased.
Its clear the club has decided that the usual route of quietly talking to the RFL behind the scenes just isn't working. Using the YEP is a nuclear option and I really hope they thought there was no other choice. If the RFL keep picking Kendall for Leeds games he'll be under enormous pressure, and if they don't it will look like they've caved, or even worse accepted some truth to the clearly implied view that Kendall is biased against Leeds.
This does need to get sorted out. For whatever reason one of the SL clubs has lost faith in the disciplinary system. That is not good for the sport.
