Inside St Helens’ two appeals and the ‘technicality’ that voided Morgan Knowles’ ban – according to former Sky Sports pundit

Despite there being a Super League Grand Final to be played this weekend between Leeds Rhinos and St Helens, there has been one major focal point this week.

That involves St Helens’ Morgan Knowles, who was banned for a Grade B Dangerous Contact charge following Saints’ semi-final play-off win against the Salford Red Devils.

Saints took that decision to appeal on Tuesday where the original decision was upheld, but the appeal was not deemed frivolous so Knowles’ two-match ban stood.

The nine times Super League Champions then appealed the appeal and this is how it played out according to former Sky Sports pundit Rod Studd.

Studd tweeted: “The MRP met on Monday + decided the tackle was reckless + likely to endanger an opponent grading it at grade B which is a 1-2 match ban. Knowles has “form” so it was 2 matches. Knowles/Saints didn’t accept the fixed pen notice + decided to go to the ORT on Tuesday (2/n)

“They pleaded not guilty arguing it was a professional foul designed to slow down the PTB. They produced medical evidence from their doctor that the opponent’s arm wasn’t taken out of normal range. I believe they also compared it to holds in judo etc + (3/n

“Techniques used by police in restraining offenders. The ORT found this argument a reasonable case to argue but dismissed it. It wasn’t frivolous but the 2 match ban stood. The ORT was a judge + 2 ex players. (4/n)

“Now this is where it gets interesting. In the summation the judge apparently said the panel agreed with the MRP verdict but accepted the opponent’s arm stayed in a natural range. Saints saw this a contradiction + contended the appeal verdict should be thrown out. (5/n)

“The appeal into that was held on Thursday with a different judge and 2 different ex players. They basically threw out the Tues verdict on the technicality spotted by Saints and now this is the bit I need clarity on + I’ve asked for it (6/n)

“I would have thought this would mean a “retrial”+ a repeat of the Tues appeal from scratch but it seems the whole ban was expunged. I’ll report back on this (7/n)

“But those are the facts as reported to me. If you want some ranting + raving from someone who has no idea of the process or what happened I’m sure you’ll find it. If you want facts, I’ll try to help. Love and good health to all. (Ends)”