John Bateman’s ban for ‘foul and abusive language’ overturned

[josie andrews]

Wigan Warriors second-rower John Bateman has been found Not Guilty of a Grade A disputing the decision of the referee in their recent defeat to St Helens.

Bateman had originally been handed a one-match penalty notice by the Match Review Panel but pleaded Not Guilty to the offence. An Independent Tribunal found Bateman Not Guilty.

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/john-bat ... ned-42472/

[Charriots Offiah]

https://www.wigantoday.net/sport/rugby- ... an-3358479

A bit of good news at last.

[Firestarter]

https://www.wigantoday.net/sport/rugby- ... an-3358479

A bit of good news at last.

Hopefully he wont be centre though…. Stick zak there please

[DaveO]

Good news he’s free to play but another example of the farce that is the disciplinary system.

Presumably the ref saw fit to sin bin him for something and unless the original match review panel completely made it up he disputed the decision they must have banned him because the refs report said he did.

So how can he be not guilty of something that is as black and white as this?

Don’t get me wrong I think the ban and even the sin bin was OTT given what went on. Maybe the review panel thought the same and this was the only way to get the ban overturned but whatever their reasoning they have basically said the match review panel and the ref were imagining things.

[moto748]

The thing about Bateman is, he does himself no favours with referees. Like Jake Connor, he's never going to get the benefit of the doubt.

[Caboosegg]

Good news he’s free to play but another example of the farce that is the disciplinary system.

Presumably the ref saw fit to sin bin him for something and unless the original match review panel completely made it up he disputed the decision they must have banned him because the refs report said he did.

So how can he be not guilty of something that is as black and white as this?

Don’t get me wrong I think the ban and even the sin bin was OTT given what went on. Maybe the review panel thought the same and this was the only way to get the ban overturned but whatever their reasoning they have basically said the match review panel and the ref were imagining things.

Or could it be that the sin binning was enough?

I mean Batemans first yellow was because he came together with Bentley after the tap to the head, no punches just coming together.. how many players have seen yellow for that before?

[fozzieskem]

To me it’s black and white for once a situation that either needed a ban or didn’t and proof that the panel simply isn’t working for all their A4 sized reports of what went on,there shouldn’t be room for an appeal in this case if the system was working.

Did Bateman deserve a ban for this no of course not but maybe for dissent a red card on the night should have been used,while I thought Kendall was abysmal the other night you don’t backchat the ref.

The whole panel and the way they look at incidents isn’t fit for purpose as it gets more bizarre as the weeks wear on,to me backchatting the ref with swearing no matter how justified (and it was the other night)it has to be dealt with,this isn’t football

[Wintergreen]

That was a shame.

Pathetic again.

[DaveO]

Good news he’s free to play but another example of the farce that is the disciplinary system.

Presumably the ref saw fit to sin bin him for something and unless the original match review panel completely made it up he disputed the decision they must have banned him because the refs report said he did.

So how can he be not guilty of something that is as black and white as this?

Don’t get me wrong I think the ban and even the sin bin was OTT given what went on. Maybe the review panel thought the same and this was the only way to get the ban overturned but whatever their reasoning they have basically said the match review panel and the ref were imagining things.

Or could it be that the sin binning was enough?

I mean Batemans first yellow was because he came together with Bentley after the tap to the head, no punches just coming together.. how many players have seen yellow for that before?

The review panel found him Not Guilty. So by that score he shouldn’t even have been sin binned!

The point I am making is this ought to be a black & white issue. He either slagged the ref off or he didn’t. The ref said he did and the original match review panel then issued a ban (which was excessive anyway but that isn’t the point). The review panel, by fining him Not Guilty said he didn’t. It’s crazy.

[moto748]

I thought the claim was that he said it, not not directed at the ref?