MORGAN Knowles' suspension from the Grand Final was overturned at a second appeal after it was ruled the Saints player had not caused "unacceptable risk" to an opponent, Rugby Football League tribunal documents show.
Knowles had appeared set to miss the final versus Leeds on Saturday after the RFL's Match Review Panel imposed a two-match ban for an alleged "arm twist" on stand-off Chris Atkin during the semi-final versus Salford.
An initial appeal by Saints on Tuesday was unsuccessful but last night it emerged Saints, mounting a case led by chief executive Mike Rush, had challenged the ruling again and a further hearing was held on Wednesday.
Details of the RFL Operational Rules Tribunal, on Wednesday, September 21, 2022, have now been published.
READ>Saints name 21-man Grand Final squad
It states that His Honour Roger Thomas QC DL and the former professional rugby league players Danny Sculthorpe and Wilf George made up the appeal panel.
The minutes state that Judge Thomas opened the hearing, outlining the original charge which was "under 15.1 (i) Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player".
It was emphasised that this was "not a re-hearing of the case but an appeal based on one of the limited number of areas an appeal could be made on".
These areas are that the Operational Rules Tribunal:
• came to a decision to which no reasonable body could have come; or
• made an error of law in reaching its decision; or
• failed to act fairly in a procedural sense; or
• the sanction imposed was so excessive or lenient (in the case of the Compliance Manager) as to be unreasonable.
The minutes state that Saints chief Rush, contested that the club's challenge was based on "that the original tribunal’s decision was contradictory and they came to a decision to which no reasonable body could have come".
The published minutes set out Saints grounds for appeal, adding: "The basis for this [Saints'] 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 minutes add that the Appeals Panel did not hear any fresh evidence "as this was not a new hearing but a review of the original hearing".
The document concludes: "After deliberation, they [the panel] 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."
Knowles is free to play in the Grand Final and was today named in Saints 21-man squad.
The suspension and subsequent appeal has dominated headlines ahead of the showpiece.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel