Taylor:

The RFL don't even know who plays for which team....

Sooooo, who pushed who in who’s face first and who retaiated by pushing who in who’s face

retaliation is the worst offence.
In relation to Taylor on McShane, it was clearly Carlos, so do the club accuse him to reprieve Taylor???

Austin decision includes the phrase "Footage inconclusive".

Another reason why televised games are a lottery.

My sympathys over the taylor 3 match ban,if that was one of the blue eyed boys o'loughlin for example it would have been no charge.The rfl are diabolically biased.

Hull surely need to appeal. I was at the game, and have watched the incidents back a few times. Nothing in them. I’d be severely brassed off if it was a Cas player with a ban for those. The McShane one nothing there at all, the Clarke one just one of those unfortunate things that can happen in a tackle.

Whilst we all agree with you there is not a chance an appeal would get the player off.
Can you imagine if on appeal the charges were dropped how that would reflect on the original panel and the conflict then in the RFL.
We know they are biased and in this case not fit for purpose but the best we could get if the club do appeal is a reduction of one match.

You’d hope the rfl becomes obsolete and the super league chairman can take control then all this might finally get sorted once and for all, or have I got it massively wrong

If I have, then what’s the solution to this incompetence

We lose out because there will be multiple camera angles for the panel to look at in taylor's cases but only 1 angle for most other players

Works for Wigan and O'Loughlin

It's a strange system, you are found guilty with no option to defend yourself, and are then threatened with an increased penalty if you have the audacity to appeal the decision.

I don't understand. Hull didn't contest the charges and therefore have no right of appeal.

Quote ="dboy"I don't understand. Hull didn't contest the charges and therefore have no right of appeal.'" Taylor was found guilty and given a 1+2 match ban. The club/player were then informed of the outcome. The club then had the option to contest the decision. In a normal court of law, you defend yourself before a verdict is given. https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/di ... sciplinary

Quote ="dboy"I don't understand. Hull didn't contest the charges and therefore have no right of appeal.'" Taylor was found guilty and given a 1+2 match ban. The club/player were then informed of the outcome. The club then had the option to contest the decision. In a normal court of law, you defend yourself before a verdict is given. https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/di ... sciplinary

That's not how it works.

1 The charge and the scope of the penalty is announced.
2 The club notifies the RFL if they are contesting the charge and the hearings are held on Tuesdays (for SL).
3 If the guilty, the club can appeal (which is where a penalty can go up as well as down).


Hull FC did not contest the charges, so the penalty notice stands unopposed.

From the RFL's Twitter - "There are no disciplinary cases to be heard tonight. The players issued with penalty notices yesterday (Super League) and last Thursday (Championship) have accepted the imposed penalty notices."

So they were found guilty and chose not to dispute it, but they were never in a position to defend themselves before the verdict.

Have a look at the link I posted.

The link is to the changes to the process made LAST YEAR.

The panel decide if there should be a charge and what the potential penalty should be (the range).

The player (or in truth the club), then decides whether to contest it or not. Hull decided not to, so the penalty notice stands.

If they had contested it, a separate panel would be review all the evidence, including a personal appearance from the player charged (and usually a lawyer!)

It's a very clear system, so I don't understand why you are struggling to follow it.

"The players accepted the imposed penalty notices", is really not hard to comprehend.

Just can’t believe the club didn’t contest either charge. After watching both incidents over and over I fail to see anything in either that warrants a penalty let alone and suspension.
I expect to see after the next round of SL at least a dozen players banned as you see tackles that Taylor made where the player being tackled gets their leg caught up. Check the Wigan v Leeds game the very next night, Sarginson gets tackled and gets foot under player affecting the tackle and twist his ankle from the weight. No difference to Taylor’s tackle on both Clark and McShane. So surely the Leeds player involved (can’t remember who) should also be charged??
These comical decision by the faceless wonders at the RFL are why I seriously wonder whether to bother with the sport anymore.
Fecking ridiculous decision and quite honestly bordering on complete and utter incompetence

Having seen the game live and a few times on tv it does as you say seem a ridiculous decision.If there was other camera angles of which the player and club saw and we did not and that is the reason for a non appeal then fair enough.If that was the case I think we should be told.If there wasn't then I am very disappointed that the club didn't appeal.Without any hidden evidence this decision is so wrong and flies is the face of what rugby league is about.Sorry that should read was about.

Don’t forget that there is an ongoing feud between the RFL and Super League with 2 of the main vocal protagonists being the Hull based club’s chairmen. Before you all get on the moral high horse, I’ve been watching these disciplinary decisions come out of Leeds for years, including hot, cold, dropped and misplaced balls in cup draws as well. It was happening long before I was born and until Super League takes total responsibility for itself it will be happening long after I’m gone. This dispensation for long term injured players malarky that Leeds and Warrington have been granted is a load of tosh, in the past, clubs had to deregister said players. Salary cap live boloney. There have always been favoured clubs, trouble is Leeds and Wigan have been amongst them forever

rant over, I’ll get my coat.

Trouble is one of those "favoured" clubs are currently sitting with 2 points docked for an offence that imo is worth a slap on the wrist at worst.

We have gotten away lightly numerous times in the past, what about playing ineligible players in the CC? And it's Cas that got dispensation, not Leeds. Take the tin foil hat off.

Taylor's ban seems harsh from what I remember of the game, but I haven't gone back to watch the incidents again. The fact the club have accepted the ban speaks volumes however.

I'm not struggling - what you've posted is what I've being saying all along, the only difference is I've been highlighting the initial process, which reviews and sentences the player without the him being represented. That comes later if the club chooses, when a threat of increased penalties is made (to reduce the number of appeals).

It's like getting a letter thru' the door saying you've been found guilty of burglary (in your absence) and sentenced to 5 years, you can appeal if you want but you may then get 10 years.

Hope you can understand.

Maybe you could post a link to THIS YEARS changes, or maybe nothing has changed as the link refers to "2018 onwards".

The fact that the club have accepted the ban does speak volumes because of the way we’ve been treated in the past. Jake Connor misses a match, Danny Brough nothing, Blake Austin nothing, my post was rather tongue in cheek, sorry for the mix up with Cas and Leeds. I know longer dye my hair so no need for foil anymore. Take your blinkers off. Wigan smashed the salary cap and were encouraged to do so when signing players to avoid relegation not so long ago.

Or is it like getting a letter through the door saying you've been caught speeding and have 3 points and a fine, you can either accept it or go to court where the penalty could be more and cost you a packet

The Club is lost at the moment.
There seems to be nobody , with any knowledge or influence in the game .