Morgan Knowles appeal findings released as decision to overturn ban explained

The England international was sin-binned for twisting the arm of Chris Atkin during Saints’ 19-12 semi-final win over Salford Red Devils on Saturday and subsequently charged by the Rugby Football League’s match review panel with a grade B offence.

An independent tribunal rejected Knowles’ initial appeal against the ban on Tuesday evening but Saints launched a second challenge, claiming the tribunal’s conclusion was “unreasonable”.

The club won their case and Knowles is now free to face Leeds Rhinos in Saturday's Super League Grand Final at Old Trafford.

In the original tribunal, the panel upheld the ban but agreed that Knowles had not forced Atkin's arm beyond the normal range of movement.

"St Helens, in the form of CEO Mike Rush, contested that their challenge was based on the fact that the original tribunal’s decision was contradictory and they came to a decision to which no reasonable body could have come," read the minutes of Wednesday's tribunal.

"The basis for this 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 Appeals Panel did not hear any fresh evidence as this was not a new hearing but a review of the original hearing, and after deliberation they 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."