Joel is appealing the severity of his punishment and not the guilty verdict.

Don't know whether the mods want a separate appeal thread to clean things up?

Thats a bit risky. But the severity is wrong especially when the bans given to the Hull players are considered especially the horrendous inaccuracy of Radfords "superb previous record"

2 matches is hardly severe for fighting AND leading with the elbow.

Other than the bailey incident, what else has he done in his entire career?

How?
2 match ban. I think that's more than fair, he runs the risk of a much longer ban if he appeals.

Still havent seen the Sam incident, anyone got a link to the video?

I thought it was 1 match per incident? So aren't we technically trying to get 1 of the bans overturned?

We have nothing to lose do we?

Now if the rfl where consistant they would over turn the ban for the elbow, carvell was let off with something very similar last year I think. Realistically they will be trying to get it down to 1 game and have him free for the wire game, think they may try to use sending off sufficient for the elbow. Worth a go

Depends whether you believe he led with the elbow. I've seen the footage and seen pictures. IMO Joel Tomkins leads with the forearm into the chest and then the elbow comes up. I think Mike Maguire had this view too, which might be why we are appealing.

Wigan are a sensible club. We never usually appeal. In fact, I can't recall a time under Mike Maguire where we have appealed. So we must believe we have a strong case.

Yes but even only that means that he does not have a clean record.

How hard is that to understand?

1 incident = unclean record.

0 incidents = the only instance where there is a clean record.


If they'd not been idiots and said that he had "reformed" then ok but they didn't.

the risk of him copping an extra game..

The maximum for his offence was 2 games.

for which incident?

Ian Lenagan wrote:We were disappointed last year at the number of sentences which were overturned upon appeal and were one of the Club's requesting that the RFL change and improve significantly the fairness, balance and transparency of the Disciplinary Process. Our experience in this case where a key Wigan player has been banned from an extremely important game is that the process is much improved and highly professional. Consequently, we accept the decision, albeit with disappointment for the Player and the Club, and look forward to a Season of consistent and fair Disciplinary Panel decisions and general acceptance of decisions taken

Thought it was 2 games for each offence so he could have got 4.

correct

Imagine a murderer up in court "Ive only done it once before in my whole life so you can you please let me off?"



A clean record means you havent been done for anything before and especially not anything similar to what your being accused of this time!.

Seems silly to me. Both offences were clear as day and I think 2 match ban was fair. If the red card has been early on then yes appeal but it was in last 20 so he didn't [ireally[/i miss massaive game time.

Given the lack of info on the RFL website we don't know what Joel was found guilty of. The only thing I've read was that he was found guilty of the elbow, but he was up on two charges so it may be he was found not guilty of the fighting one given it was Yeaman who was the instigator? Who knows.

I remember much talk of moral high ground and "Leeds take note" after that. Didn't last very long.

Which shows that he has come to the conclusion that this was unfair.

I suspect that he does not feel Joel's actual ban is unfair but rather the difference between his and the Hull player's bans.

You dont appeal a decision based on how much game time they lost due to being off the field for a red/yellow card, you appeal because you think the punishment is too harsh for the offence that had been committed. To be honest I thought 2 was fair I was expecting 3, hopefully no harm in appealing and the ban is either reduced or at least not extended.

First impressions live and then later on TV were it was very bad, lucky to get away with a 2 week ban.

Then view the incident in slow motion and it's clear his forearm hits the chest first. Sending off sufficient. There is no way the RFL will not reduce the ban on appeal, if they do they're setting a very dangerous precedant of being banned for chest impact

Exactly. I usually hate this "watched from another angle" rubbish but this clearly is a case where it needs to be watched from every angle and a decision made.

Though to be honest if they did their job correctly they should already have done this.

So we're saying you can swing your elbow/forearm into someone's face when carrying the ball, provided you glance the chest first?