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="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="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.