It is the talk of rugby league. Morgan Knowles, banned for the Grand Final, has been cleared to play after St Helens successfully appealed his case. It has quickly become the biggest talking point ahead of the Grand Final. Two days out from Old Trafford, the fact that Knowles is free to play threatens to be one of the most controversial incidents in the build-up to a Grand Final.
The Super League champions, chasing a fourth-straight title, ensured their star forward would be free to play in the biggest game of the year following the processes set in place. This started when they initially appealed the Match Review Panel's charge against Knowles, which was a Grade B dangerous contact offence.
The first case took place on Tuesday evening. Saints argued, with medical evidence, that Knowles' actions on Salford's Chris Atkin did not force his arm beyond the normal range of movement, which therefore counteracted the decision to sanction him for dangerous contact. Furthermore, Saints argued that the tackle was a professional foul, with Knowles turning Atkin to slow the play the ball down.
The operations tribunal on that night consisted of the barrister, Sean Smith, Russ Bridge, a former Leigh Centurions, Wigan Warriors and Fulham player, and Alan Hunte, a Great Britain international who enjoyed a successful club career, predominantly with St Helens but also Warrington, Hull FC and Salford.
After deliberation, they decided to uphold the ban, citing that Knowles' actions posed an unacceptable risk of injury. But crucially, and this is the important thing, they agreed with St Helens' argument that Knowles had not forced Atkin's arm beyond the normal range of movement and accepted that his action was in an attempt to slow the play the ball down.
This is crucial because the findings of the first tribunal were the base of St Helens' second appeal. Within hours of the case being heard, St Helens, whose case has been directed by CEO Mike Rush, contacted the RFL to state, with provisional evidence, that the verdict was unreasonable and wished to appeal again.
Many have questioned how Saints got a second appeal just 24 hours after the first. Leeds have twice appealed appeals this year but the second hearing wasn't heard until a week later. But the rules state that a hearing will be heard the next day should documentation be lodged before 11 AM. St Helens sent details at around 8 AM.
At this point, Saints' defence was based around the findings of the first appeal. They argued that, given the first tribunal had agreed the incident didn't take Atkin beyond the normal range of movement, it meant it wasn't possible that Knowles could have provided an unacceptable risk of injury. They argued it was, in essence, a contradiction. They also argued that, given the previous panel had accepted the incident was a professional foul, it would be unreasonable to suspend him as professional fouls have never been a bannable offence.
As a consequence, the second tribunal, which featured judge Roger Thomas, former Halifax winger Wilf George and Danny Sculthorpe, whose playing career was largely played out at Wigan, accepted their case was valid and overturned the suspension.
In effect, St Helens were able to win the case by using the first tribunal's words against them. It was, to a degree, a technicality. But they got the outcome they were looking for.
Well done Saints for exploiting the incompetence of the previous panel and shows how sh$te the MRP really is.
