: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:23 am  

Thelonius wrote:

Well if he went in with Lowes, Lowes was probably leaning back on the two legs of his chair with feet on the table explaining how it's not about him and it's easy at the top.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:30 am  

keithcun wrote: But surely intent is very hard to prove and I see that's the only difference between the Grade C and D. I agree but not sure if you can bargain with the RFL and offer to plead to a lesser offence that the one you have been charged (unlike criminal case defence and the CPS for example). Anyway we should get the full notes here shortly. http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=744

keithcun wrote: But surely intent is very hard to prove and I see that's the only difference between the Grade C and D. I agree but not sure if you can bargain with the RFL and offer to plead to a lesser offence that the one you have been charged (unlike criminal case defence and the CPS for example). Anyway we should get the full notes here shortly. http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=744

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:32 am  

keithcun wrote:

This is another part that interests me. Surely, from the clubs point of view they should have gone in and pleaded not guilty to this charge and admitted guilt to the lesser charge, ie, the one that Fakir was given, a Grade C offence.

Surely he hasn't gone in, with representatives, and pleaded guilty to intentionally smacking the bloke in the face. If that's the case, then questions need to be asked about the players representatives.

Maybe they were given the nod to plead guilty and get five, plead not guilty and get six on a rejected appeal?

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:34 am  

keithcun wrote:

But surely intent is very hard to prove and I see that's the only difference between the Grade C and D.

To be honest, he probably knew he was up for it having, less than a year ago, pleading guilty to 06/04/08 Law: 15.1(b) Detail: Reckless about outcome Grade:C

PS - James Lowes does respresent the player accoring to the notes.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:42 am  

getdownmonkeyman wrote:

Maybe they were given the nod to plead guilty and get five, plead not guilty and get six on a rejected appeal?

Doubt it. He was charged as Grade D which carries the tariff of 3-5 match ban, he got the maximum they could give him for that offence.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:51 am  

Wires71 wrote:

Doubt it. He was charged as Grade D which carries the tariff of 3-5 match ban, he got the maximum they could give him for that offence.

You would have thought that pleading guilty results in a lesser punishment than pleading not guilty but then being found guilty (isn't that roughly how it works in the courts?). Perhaps their rational was to plead guilty and get less than the maximum (4 or maybe even 3 games) but their policy backfired.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:34 pm  

Wires71 wrote:

Doubt it. He was charged as Grade D which carries the tariff of 3-5 match ban, he got the maximum they could give him for that offence.

3-5 is the normal punishment for this offence. If a players past record is bad, then the committee are guided to increase the ban length.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:07 pm  

Dave T wrote:

3-5 is the normal punishment for this offence. If a players past record is bad, then the committee are guided to increase the ban length.

Wasnt the last person that happened to sonny nickel years ago,didnt he get something like 6 matches,appealed then ended up with 8..

didnt he use them up in A team games as well??

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:41 pm  

Good old RFL sreknaw