WiganWarriorsFans.com

endoman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 6:52 pm Is he able to use the reserve game this weekend as one of them?

Yes.

Operational Rules Tribunal | April 25

Leigh Leopards have appealed the one-match suspension imposed on Nathan Wilde for Grade B dangerous contact in last Friday’s Betfred Super League victory over Leeds Rhinos. The appeal will be heard by an independent Operational Rules Tribunal this evening.

Catalans Dragons have also appealed a decision of Monday’s Match Review Panel that their prop Siosiua Taukeiaho was guilty of a Grade B high tackle in Sunday’s Betfred Super League game at Salford. Their appeal will be heard by an Operational Rules Tribunal next Tuesday.
The Dragons have already established that if found guilty, the player will not be subject to a one-match suspension, as previously stated – following further research into his previous record.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... C-april-25

Disciplinary news: Operational Rules Tribunal

Leigh Leopards’ Nathan Wilde tonight won his appeal against a charge of Grade B Dangerous Contact with a Leeds Rhinos opponent during last Friday’s Betfred Super League game.

Wilde admitted the offence but successfully challenged its grading, which was downgraded to Grade A and his one match suspension overturned. He is fined £250.

The following players accepted Match Review Panel charges:

Joe Batchelor – St Helens – Other Contrary Behaviour – A – No further action
Kenny Edwards – Castleford Tigers – Other Contrary Behaviour – C – 1 Match Penalty Notice
Bureta Faraimo – Castleford Tigers – Dangerous Contact – A – No further action
Bureta Faraimo – Castleford Tigers – Strikes – B – 1 Match Penalty Notice
Tom Holroyd – Leeds Rhinos – Dangerous Contact – B – £250 Fine
Willie Isa – Wigan Warriors – Dangerous Throw – C – 2 Match Penalty Notice
Michael McIlorum – Catalans Dragons – Trips – B – 1 Match Penalty Notice
Nathan Peats – Huddersfield Giants – Dangerous Contact – A – No further action
Jorge Taufua – Wakefield Trinity – Dangerous Contact – A – No further action
Liam Watts – Castleford Tigers – Dangerous Contact – B – 1 Match Penalty Notice
Nathan Wilde – Leigh Leopards – Dangerous Contact – A – £250 Fine

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... s-tribunal

So not even an attempt of an appeal!

I would have thought that we would have appealed isa’s ban after hearing matty Peet’s thoughts about it
Anyone heard why we didn’t appeal

oval balls wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:14 am I would have thought that we would have appealed isa’s ban after hearing matty Peet’s thoughts about it
Anyone heard why we didn’t appeal

i'd say his previous record would go against him, whether we believed it was a legal tackle or not, and chances are the ban would have been increased (we've had that before against our players), so unfortunately take it on the chin and effectively serve a 1 match ban

James Childs is on the 40/20 podcast,he’s a good listen to and while he wasn’t referring to the Isa tackle in particular he was saying about the initial contact is what the review panel look at,I presume the panel get their crayons out and write guilt or not guilty in their best handwriting,it’s the only thing that makes sense.

fozzieskem wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:18 pm James Childs is on the 40/20 podcast,he’s a good listen to and while he wasn’t referring to the Isa tackle in particular he was saying about the initial contact is what the review panel look at,I presume the panel get their crayons out and write guilt or not guilty in their best handwriting,it’s the only thing that makes sense.

that makes no sense then (but neither does the decision ). The initial contact is virtually text book, low and hard into the middle of his body. The only thing poss going against Isa is he possibly lets go, as the guy is on the way down, so could be argued it was dangerous at that point (end of the tackle)

But, yes, i think you are right with the rest. Big pack of colouring crayons to make the decisions

the pieman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:21 pm

fozzieskem wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:18 pm James Childs is on the 40/20 podcast,he’s a good listen to and while he wasn’t referring to the Isa tackle in particular he was saying about the initial contact is what the review panel look at,I presume the panel get their crayons out and write guilt or not guilty in their best handwriting,it’s the only thing that makes sense.

that makes no sense then (but neither does the decision ). The initial contact is virtually text book, low and hard into the middle of his body. The only thing poss going against Isa is he possibly lets go, as the guy is on the way down, so could be argued it was dangerous at that point (end of the tackle)

But, yes, i think you are right with the rest. Big pack of colouring crayons to make the decisions

As I said Childs wasn't referring to the Isa tackle just what the panel look for,I'd assume when the panel can be dragged away from their kaleidoscope to make a decision,think you've probably got it right it's the way down that's probably done for him and the reason why there's no appeal.

It was a great tackle that's for sure but I feel one that's on its way out of the game

oval balls wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:14 am I would have thought that we would have appealed isa’s ban after hearing matty Peet’s thoughts about it
Anyone heard why we didn’t appeal

We don’t want his ban extended, he will be available for the cup-tie with Leeds.