Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 8:38 am  

Bullseye wrote:

Anyone got a link to the written judgement. The RFL Web page is really hard to navigate.

I can't seem to find anything on their disciplinary page.

Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:19 am  

The Minutes will be on the disciplinary cases page. Don't think they've written them up yet.

[Bullseye]

Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:30 am  

Navigating to the right page is a total nightmare anyway. Really poor web design.

Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 10:47 am  

We can only appeal with new information I think. We could do with asking St Helens how they manage it. Do they owe us a favour at all?

Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 11:31 am  

Highlander wrote:

We can only appeal with new information I think. We could do with asking St Helens how they manage it. Do they owe us a favour at all?

Wide to West. Chris Joynt's voluntary tackle. Withers 'knock on'. They definitely owe us one.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 12:55 pm  

The whole disciplinary panel is constructed to thwart our success as part of the far-reaching conspiracy. Paul Dixon and Nathan McAvoy, for example, have always had it in for us.

Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:09 pm  

Tribunal notes now on. I'll try copy and paste them

Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:24 pm  

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance ... nary-cases Search for Taufua's name. Effectively the referee is a careful considered witness (who was in Shock at the incident hence took so long to call time off) and had a good view of the incident despite being 10meteres away and several tacklers involved...

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance ... nary-cases Search for Taufua's name. Effectively the referee is a careful considered witness (who was in Shock at the incident hence took so long to call time off) and had a good view of the incident despite being 10meteres away and several tacklers involved...

Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 3:51 pm  

So basically the whole case revolved around that plonker with the whistle who was 'in shock' by an incident of foul play that resulted in an injury that required no treatment or broke any skin.

Ref 'believed' JT was wearing a gum shield? Surely with his 'clear view' he would know 100% and in some detail. If he can see the bite I'd imagine he will also be able to describe that gum shield in some detail with such a clear view from 12 metres away.

Tricky one for the club, they could appeal but end up losing JT for any play offs as a result.

[Bullseye]

Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 4:29 pm  

All this talk about his arm being "in front of his mouth". If it was only "in front" as opposed to "in his mouth" then he wouldn't be able to bite it.

As expected the RFL will always back the official no matter what. As mentioned the burden of proof is very low in these cases. Still not clear why the offence was downgraded. Saying for the "reasons above" doesn't really cut it.