The Reaper wrote:
It’s not about new sanctions. You can appeal the result of your appeal, which you did twice and now we’ve done.
No you cannot appeal the result of an appeal, unless the result of the original appeal is for additional matches to be added to the orignal sanction. I will spoon feed it to you, so you cannot misunderstand.
1. Martin is banned for a single match for an offence
2. That ban is then appealed
3. The appeal is not successful and an additional match is added to the original sanction. That additional match being for the frivolous nature of the appeal (now a two game ban).
4. A further appeal is made, not against the original ban of one match, but rather the additional or second match which was added for the frivolous appeal against the original one game ban.
5. That further appeal isn’t successful, the orignal appeal is deemed frivolous and Martin is banned for two games. One for the offence and one for the frivolous appeal.
1. Knowles is banned for two matches for an offence
2. That ban is then appealed
3. The appeal is not successful, the charge and grading remain static. No additional match is added, the panel must have taken the view it was not frivolous.
4. A further appeal is made, it cannot be against any additional marches or frivolous nature of the appeal because no additional matches were added to the orignal sanction on appeal and it wasn’t deemed a frivolous appeal.
5. The original sanction is over turned and as such there is essentially no ban and Knowles is free to play.
Those two situations are not the same, they have very significant differences. What you are talking about with Knowles is a secondary appeal or an appeal against an appeal decision. I don’t like the original decision, I’ve appealed and lost again so I am going to keep going until I get a different answer.
That just isn’t what the rules are, they never have been. So how come in the week of a grand final, are St Helens allowed to make an appeal that no other club has seemingly been able to make all year?
