If the RFL did actually have conclusive proof of guilt (ie another clear angle etc) JB would have definitely been charged with a much higher/severe grading than B (ie 1-2 game category). I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.

As it is, they've found him guilty of that particular graded B offence. Took away the player's EGP - and then basically sentenced him against a far greater offence than the one the evidence supports or indeed he was charged with. A particular guilt and punishment that can only be speculated against due to the outcome of the injury Shenton unfortunately received.

Reading the report, it seems to be heavily based on the aggravating circumstances rather than anything else and any speculative defence brushed aside. The dismissive way they reject JB slips/looses footing as a possibility. Anyone can see conditions and this looks (in part) entirely plausible and actual. Nah, wash over that bit. Guilty before innocent, we won't accept anything other than doubt that leans towards guilt as evidence. Aggravating circumstances dictate this.

In a contact sport such as Rugby league, injuries are going to happen – be it, arising from foul play or fair play. So I think when the disciplinary panel are going to start deciding punishments based on the outcome rather than act/evidence, it could start a problem for itself. The perceived, equivalent justice/no justice – 2 tier punishments.

Take Philbin on Kelly last season in our semi. Late hit/charge down on Kelly. No action was deemed necessary by the RFL then but it was clear he put undue stress on Kelly’s knee and resulted in his knee/leg in an unnatural position. It was cited but no aggravating factors to that case/verdict. Kelly played on of course but never played another league game due to the injury that occurred. (played in the final patched up – but was never fit of course). Every team will be able to bring up incidents not flagged.

James Green on Burns last year. Burns sustained a broken cheekbone. Green EGP 1 game. Uproar.
Sky camera shows contact with chest/shoulder first. Without this evidence would Green have got say 4 games? Aggravating circumstances that time?

I just think it could even start in motion a dangerous precedence that some clubs could even abuse. Ie overstate injuries to sway the judiciary hearings … Of course no one is suggesting that here, but you get the point. If the evidence (tv footage etc) doesn't show enough either way, I don't like how it then falls to the outcome of the incident to dictate/increase the punishment. In as much, guilt has already been decided in the headlines.

Yeah, that is more of a suggestion than a confirmation. Or maybe even just a backside-covering caveat, which is how I've been using it.

And we're in a grump with inference at the moment.

In fairness to NottsTiger, he shares our view on the evidence available to us not justifying the decision. His theory is internally consistent - that nobody could make that call based on just that evidence, so there must be other evidence. We're just more willing to entertain the notion that the disciplinary committee might not have done its job with competence and/or integrity. If other evidence does turn up, even considering that possibility might look harsh.
Tbh, if there were more compelling evidence it'd be a relief in some ways, for all that it might make my (thoroughly caveated, but still intense) outrage look ridiculous. It isn't nice thinking the system is that flawed.
There's still be the issue of the pre-judged appeal as well, so overall my inference is less optimistic.

I never really understood the 'pre judged' appeal to be honest.
Of course, to some extent, an appeal is always slightly influenced by the fact there must have been a 'guilty' verdict otherwise there wouldn't be an appeal.
However, your chairman seems to be suggesting that the OUTCOME of the appeal was actually decided before the appeal hearing (ie they decided that the ban would stand before the hearing). If this is true, he should have made this the focus of his argument, rather than the more melodramatic statements about Powell and boycotting the return fixture that were always going to look like he was just throwing his teddy out of the cot and having a meltdown.

In other news, according to "rumours" it appears Shenton's injury may not be a serious as first thought. He is going to be out for some time, but about four months rather than the nine originally thought (the injury may not require surgery apparently). I imagine your chairman will be moaning about that next!

So because Shenton's injury is not as serious as first thought then Boudebza's ban should also be reduced. After all the ban is supposed to reflect the seriousness of the injury according to the clowns at Red Hall.

Good point. It hadn't really occurred to me that that could happen... Dangerous from the rfl to set that precendent.

Bit underlined - yep that is my reading of it.

I agree that (based on the evidence available) Rovers issue is with the RFL much, much more than Castleford; with the (seemingly) poor initial decision and (accusations of) serious breaches of process. Powell's bellyaching isn't at all unusual among coaches (our own among them at times over the years) - what is shocking that it [iseems[/i to have such a profound impact. Not his fault if the RFL take his word as law.

I hope Shenton is back on the pitch as soon as possible.