NRL officially docks 2 points over Bulldogs 14 players

[Timmah]

Dogs of War - excellent point. There is no recourse on any given weekend if Finch admits a referee erred - it would open up a massive can of worms.

 

[Pass the Ball]

The disallowed try is absolutely irrelevant...

 

[mxlegend99]

To the case at hand, that disallowed try is irrelevant. Although if the referees had done their job correctly we could have avoided this whole mess.

As far as the case is concerned.... all that is relevant is that the Bulldogs scored a match winning try with 14 players on the field. If they are denied their bid for the 2 points, then the Panthers should be allowed to make a claim for them. We only lost by 2 points, and the Bulldogs scored 6 points with 14-men on the field.

To be honest I think the Doggies will get their 2 points back. The Panthers fighting for them could go in their favour. If the NRL awards them back to the Bulldogs, they don't have to look at the Panthers arguement.

 

[RHYTHM AND STEALTH]

Given the minor nature of what's been alleged, I'm pretty sure if there's any punishment it will come in the form of a fine. Brandy re-counted after the game and withdrew his comment I believe - and the only concession I've heard from the 'Dogs camp is that Eastwood may have come on to celebrate after the try? Which IMO and most I would think, would entail a fine, not competition points.

:x

 

[bartman]

Is this still going on? :lol:

It's been ruled twice now that they shouldn't have the points - once by the NRL, and once under the NRL appeals. The club should have just acknowledged the mistake and accepted the punishment imo, and been an example to others to be more careful.

Penrith had no right to claim the deducted points as theirs, as penalty deductions don't work like that. Tough, that's life.

It shouldn't have anything to do with the winning margin, it's more to do with a club breaking the fundamental rules of game during a match and having to then forfeit the benefit of their win, the two points in question.

 

[Timmah]

Players break the fundamental rules of the game all match, that just earns them a penalty and a few less metres, not two points...

 

[El Diablo]

Players break the fundamental rules of the game all match, that just earns them a penalty and a few less metres, not two points...

:crazy:

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Good to see the scum being stripped of points they didn't deserve.

 

[Pass the Ball]

Players break the fundamental rules of the game all match, that just earns them a penalty and a few less metres, not two points...

It is amazing that you just can't get it....

 

[bartman]

Players break the fundamental rules of the game all match, that just earns them a penalty and a few less metres, not two points...

Goodness me... I was talking about a club and its responsibilities (to keep a maximum of 13 players on the field), not the actions of an individual player that cops a refereeing penalty. :crazy:

But have it your way then... winning try disallowed, penalty to Penrith where Ryan (or whoever it was, it's weeks ago now) re-entered the field. Penrith win the game, and get the 2 points, Bulldogs get 0... .

 

[Timmah]

Given there was three minutes left...? :lol: Plenty of time, especially against a team like Pemruff.

 

[God-King Dean]

Players break the fundamental rules of the game all match, that just earns them a penalty and a few less metres, not two points...

Cracking jokes aren't you ?

 

[Timmah]

Bulldogs points appeal rejected
AAP

The Bulldogs have had their application to appeal against the NRL's decision to strip them of two competition points for fielding 14 men in a round two match against Penrith rejected.
In refusing to grant the appeal President of the NRL Appeals Committee, Sir Laurence Street, said in a statement: "This Application for Leave to Appeal falls within a small compass although I recognise that the outcome is of great importance to the Bulldogs.
"The Application has been well and thoroughly argued by Senior Counsel for the Bulldogs and the NRL but in my view an appeal to the tribunal does not have good prospects of success and it follows that Leave to Appeal must be refused.
"The undisputed fact is that the Bulldogs had 14 players on the field when they scored the winning try.
"The presence of the 14th player was due to an error by a Bulldogs Official.
"The prohibition against 14 players is clear and specific and a club that breaches the Rule must expect to receive a significant penalty."
NRL chief executive David Gallop said given the scope of legal submissions which required adjudication, clubs needed to re-think their attitudes towards the appeals process.
"This has been drawn out more than it should and I think there is a real danger of clubs becoming 'over-lawyered' in their approach to appeals," he said.
"We provide an appeal process so that clubs can test whether our decisions are within the scope of our rules, without having to go to the expense and the time delays of the court system."
Bulldogs chief executive Todd Greenberg said the club had accepted the decision.
"We are disappointed not to receive leave to appeal but have received a fair hearing," he said.
"We are now happy to move on."


http://www.nrl.com/News/Latest/tabid/10244/default.aspx?id=54566

 

[mattyg]

ok it got rejected, but was it really necessary for gallop to come out saying clubs are becoming "over-lawyered". We went through the appeal process properly and didn't take it to the courts...gallop should spend his time trying to maximise tv revenue and sponsorships as opposed to what he is doing at the moment which is dribbling on about us dragging out the appeal...of course we would, its 2 points which we fought hard for in the game, we won't let it go without appealing it...

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

So they should, too.

 

[bartman]

ok it got rejected, but was it really necessary for gallop to come out saying clubs are becoming "over-lawyered".

Yes! The Dogs' reaction to this as a club was both time and money wasting to the code.

of course we would, its 2 points which we fought hard for in the game, we won't let it go without appealing it...

Well, when the club clearly breaks the rules, has no substance to any case for why they should avoid the prescribed penalty, then perhaps this off-field "fight" should have come to a close weeks ago.

Finally, sanity has prevailed.

 

[Timmah]

Yes! The Dogs' reaction to this as a club was both time and money wasting to the code.


Well, when the club clearly breaks the rules, has no substance to any case for why they should avoid the prescribed penalty, then perhaps this off-field "fight" should have come to a close weeks ago.

Finally, sanity has prevailed.

:lol: You're suggesting a club doesn't have a legal right to an appeal.

I guess Stewart should just throw in the towel now too? :lol:

Due process was done, we were denied. Gallop's comments were unnecessary.

 

[bartman]

:lol: You're suggesting a club doesn't have a legal right to an appeal.

No, I'm suggesting that a club that was so clearly in the wrong shouldn't have abused the right to appeal.

I guess Stewart should just throw in the towel now too? :lol:

Who? And what towel? He's got a big case ahead of him, hasn't even got to appeals yet.

Due process was done, we were denied. Gallop's comments were unnecessary.

Due process was done, the Dogs were in denial. Gallop's comments are to be commended

 

[Gaba]

No, I'm suggesting that a club that was so clearly in the wrong shouldn't have abused the right to appeal.

Good point, and they shouldnt have tried to bring the comparison to the brisbane one in , they were nothing alike,