A contradiction in a tribunal’s decision is essentially what led to St Helens forward Morgan Knowles controversially being free to play in Saturday’s Betfred Super League Grand Final.
The England international was sin-binned for an alleged ‘chicken wing’ tackle when twisting the arm of Salford’s Chris Atkin in Saturday’s 19-12 semi-final win.
He was charged by the Rugby Football League’s match review panel with a Grade B dangerous contact offence and handed a two-match penalty notice. An independent tribunal rejected Knowles’ initial appeal against the ban on Tuesday evening but the champions still felt they had a case to get their player free for the Grand Final against Leeds Rhinos.
They launched a second challenge last night, claiming the tribunal’s conclusion was “unreasonable” based on the evidence presented, and it proved successful meaning Knowles is not only free for Old Trafford but also England’s World Cup warm-up game against Fiji.
At the first hearing, with medical evidence, Saints had contested that Knowles’ actions on Atkin did not force his arm beyond the normal range of movement so the charge could not be classed as ‘dangerous contact.’
The Super League club said it was, instead, a professional foul as the 25-year-old attempted to slow the play the ball. The tribunal decided to uphold the ban saying the tackle, in its action, still posed an unacceptable risk of injury.
Crucially, however, it also agreed with Saints’ argument that Knowles had not forced Atkin’s arm beyond the normal range of movement and concurred it was a bid to slow the play-the-ball. This brought the contradiction which fuelled Saints’ bid to have the case thrown out.
The RFL has since published the minutes of the second appeal, which had a different three-man panel of HRH Roger Thomas and panel members Wilf George and Danny Sculthorpe, both former players.
It read: “St Helens’, in the form of CEO Mike Rush, contested that their challenge was based on the fact that the original tribunal’s decision was contradictory and they came to a decision to which no reasonable body could have come.
“The basis for this argument was that as the original tribunal had agreed that the action of Mr Knowles was a professional foul in an attempt to slow the play the ball down; they could not say that either the player’s shoulder or indeed the player’s wrist at any point was in an unnatural position, although it appeared that the attacking player’s shoulder was put to the end of the range of its normal motion. Whilst there could be a risk, as with every tackle on the rugby pitch, due to the lack of movement beyond its natural range, there was not an ‘unacceptable risk’ which was an element of the charge and all elements of that charge had to be met.
“Although the original tribunal believed that Mr Knowles’ actions caused the attacking player to twist his trunk in the same direction as Mr Knowles was applying pressure, so as to avoid further injury to himself and was therefore in a vulnerable position such that any further force from Mr Knowles or indeed from any other tackler could easily have caused injury, their opinion that there was an unacceptable risk taken by the player was wrong, as they had already agreed that the arm was never in an unnatural position Mr Knowles’ actions were, therefore, not reckless.
“The Appeals Panel did not hear any fresh evidence as this was not a new hearing but a review of the original hearing, and after deliberation they agreed that the original tribunal’s ruling that there was ‘unacceptable risk’ could not be the case if the player’s arm never extended beyond the natural range of movement and therefore deemed the appeal to be successful.”
Last night's shock development caused an outcry of disbelief from rugby league folk, many of whom have long criticised the vagaries of the sport’s disciplinary processes arguing punishments have become too tough - or, in this instance, too lenient - and often inconsistent.
That is especially so given Leeds’ Rhyse Martin recently had his appeal against a one-game ban - for a high tackle largely deemed innocuous - increased to two matches for a ‘frivolous’ appeal. Ironically, he returns for Rhinos in the Grand Final.
