You cared enough to reply. It'd not a ing contest - I am merely trying to help develop your education (pronounced "ed-u-ca-shun" - not "ed-u-ca-shi-un").

You must be thinking of the geographical region "Polynesia", which could be 5 syllables.

Pol-i-nee-si-a.

Or 4 still - Pol-i-nee-sja.

Great thread lads.

So in a week where the sport had a social media boycott in response to racial abuse, a player who is found guilty of racial abuse is handed the minimum punishment that the grade carries.

Travesty

Well, a few weeks ago, Bradford Bulls player George Flannigan was hit with a 10 game ban for a Grade F offense. So according to the RFL, a hit to the balls is worse than racist abuse.

Oh look he’s guilty surprise surprise!

8 games is shocking. Wigan should really sack him tbh.

I’m glad he was found guilty by an independent panel, rather than the pitchfork and flaming torch brigade, that sometimes shows up on these forums.

Judge says he's not a racist.

I can not believe the statement I’ve seen from the RFL.
Two things:
1. The assertion that someone who racially abused another player is in fact not a racist. This is almost a racist comment in itself, based on the belief that racist behaviour doesn’t make someone a racist. Defending racists in this way is horrendous from the RFL.
2. The justification of racism based on the argument of “simply that on this occasion he used unacceptable language in the heat of the moment.” This is the RFL making excuses for racism.

Sometimes it helps to read the room.

You do know the panel is independent and not the RFL right?