Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:16 pm  

Stu M wrote:

I agree with a lot of your points here. I'm a Saints fan first and foremost as you are with Wigan. Woolf was paid by Saints to win trophies and when he withdrew players from international games to increase our chances of winning trophies then that suited me. Yes the likes of Nicky Kiss on here will disagree vehemently and say what about the wider game but I pay good money to watch my team and naturally I want them to win everything.

I'd rather opposition fans hate Woolf but we win stuff than for everyone to say Peet seems like a good bloke because he allows all the Wigan players to play for their country.

Exactly.

Wigan 1st and if that's means following the same approach as Saints, then that's fine.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:17 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

As I said, you make a lot of good points and call a spade a spade all you like but you don't know the bloke you're calling a scrubber from a council house and at that stage, the good points become less effective (I actually do know people who know that guy and by all accounts he's a thoroughly decent chap and he loves rugby league, so he's ok by me). The game is portrayed as almost amateur at times, I agree with that and IMG need to start earning their position within the game and work on that perception. There will always be room for a romantic tale though and you can't just brush out the games roots in working class, Northern towns. It's a balancing act and one we need to work on. The players should be superstars but outside of Rugby league towns, nobody knows them from Adam.

He's a lifelong Leigh supporter and even has pieces of Hilton Park on display in his garden.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:18 pm  

The Reaper wrote:

I don’t think that’s right lol, unless I’m getting mixed up with the other time it happened to Leeds but I only remember reading the Martin minutes. It explained why the appeal was deemed as frivolous.

They can’t just decide an appeal is frivolous based on “this was a fair ban” because A) that’s a completely subjective line that can’t be enforced in any kind of procedural manner and B) they can’t give a punishment for appealing any ban, as that would invite legal repercussions especially with fines involved

You have to have an appeals procedure in these things, and clubs/players have to be able to use them without fear of repercussions. As long as you are appealing an aspect of the charge (IE, guilt or grading) then you will never get deemed it to be a frivolous appeal. You can’t appeal just to try and get them to reduce the ban as that can’t be done if the grading and guilt are correct.

I wasn’t saying that there shouldn’t be an appeals process. What I was saying was that the version of frivolity you provided us with was an interpretation not the actual rule. Unless you can actually quote the rule we are all guessing when it should be applied.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:24 pm  

The Reaper wrote:

To be fair, the MRP weren’t dishing out bans to anything that moved at the time either, so there was much less of this circus.

But we are subject to the same rules and we have not bleated about the process/system.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:32 pm  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

The only part of your post I don't particularly agree with is the bit about Wellens being a hypocrite and in any way embarrassing. He called out Asiata for what is clearly a dangerous tackle technique. You're not honestly saying the Lees tackle on Greenwood was even comparable in terms of how dangerous it is are you?

If he had been asked about the Bell tackle on Bentley and he tried to defend/justify it then I agree he would be a massive hypocrite. As it happened, the question was surprisingly never put to him (genuinely can't believe no journo had the balls) and he therefore said nothing. He isn't going to voluntarily come out and start talking about his own player is he?

Like I said, I don't disagree with your post about our discipline in general earlier in the year and why have we received the most bans. We've had some idiotic moments from Knowles, Matautia, Sironen and Bell this season and I have very little sympathy with most of the charges and bans. The Lees one this weekend just gone I have some sympathy with as it was a genuine attempt at what most of us would class as a good hit. Under the current rules, if they see evidence of head contact I can see why he was banned and said a couple of days ago I have no issue with that.

But to suggest Wellens is a hypocrite for calling out a potentially career/season-ending technique and then appealing a ban for a marginal/debatable high tackle makes no sense to me. The two things couldn't be more different.

I like Wellens but his public comments about Asiata are uncalled for. If he wishes to raise Asiata’s tackling technique as an issue he should have taken it through the appropriate channels. That part of the game should not be played out in the media. From what I can gather, Asiata’s tackling technique is not breaking the rules of the game (although I have to say I don’t like it) and consequently Wellens should be asking the RFL to look at the rules not pillorying the Leigh player.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:56 pm  

Further to the above from Saint's own press release:

The Club’s then lodged an appeal on Wednesday night which was based on the fact that we believe the Operational Rules Tribunal made an error of law in its decision or failed to act fairly in a procedural sense.

So definitely a technicality.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:57 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

Further to the above from Saint's own press release:

The Club’s then lodged an appeal on Wednesday night which was based on the fact that we believe the Operational Rules Tribunal made an error of law in its decision or failed to act fairly in a procedural sense.

So definitely a technicality.

I've quoted exactly the same earlier. See my comments in relation to it.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Thu Aug 17, 2023 2:02 pm  

Going round in circles now, let's just all agree this Saints team is bunch of head hunting grubs who deserve every ban they get

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Thu Aug 17, 2023 2:13 pm  

Stu M wrote:

I've quoted exactly the same earlier. See my comments in relation to it.

Your post:



NB I've just re-read the official club statement. The actual words were "we believe the Operational Rules Tribunal made an error of law in its decision or failed to act fairly in a procedural sense"

Thats quite vague and open to interpretation. It could be challenging the grading or challenging the guilt. It could be trying to exploit a loophole but we don't know. Thats my point but please don't assume.




It absolutely is NOT open to interpretation. The appeal can only be appealed on a technicality, not on the guilt of the player which has already been determined.

To put it in the bluntest terms possible to avoid any further fudging of the facts:

You are wrong.

Re: Wigan v Sts discussion - THIS THREAD ONLY PLEASE : Thu Aug 17, 2023 2:46 pm  

Zig wrote: I wasn’t saying that there shouldn’t be an appeals process. What I was saying was that the version of frivolity you provided us with was an interpretation not the actual rule. Unless you can actually quote the rule we are all guessing when it should be applied. As far as the RFL/tribunals explaining how they’ve come to the decision on a frivolous appeal, this is the only thing I can find which is what I was referencing: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ ... al-3835355 However, having just scoured through the RFL rules on the disciplinary system, it seems that they don’t really define what makes a frivolous appeal other than that it’s deemed unreasonable or without basis https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... 202023.pdf Which is part of the problem with the RFL in general. Everything seems open to interpretation and they themselves never interoperate things the same way twice!

Zig wrote: I wasn’t saying that there shouldn’t be an appeals process. What I was saying was that the version of frivolity you provided us with was an interpretation not the actual rule. Unless you can actually quote the rule we are all guessing when it should be applied. As far as the RFL/tribunals explaining how they’ve come to the decision on a frivolous appeal, this is the only thing I can find which is what I was referencing: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ ... al-3835355 However, having just scoured through the RFL rules on the disciplinary system, it seems that they don’t really define what makes a frivolous appeal other than that it’s deemed unreasonable or without basis https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... 202023.pdf Which is part of the problem with the RFL in general. Everything seems open to interpretation and they themselves never interoperate things the same way twice!