I should think so too. It does make it seem stranger still that SG hasn't selected Titus since the match in question though,. I can't understand the thinking behind that.

3 of interest on this.
1. We have (as SG said) nothing to lose against a ban of this length.
2. The glaring discrepancy between Titus G and Sione M.
3. Appeals have reduced previous ban lengths but only when SL players are involved.

We’ll see if the RFL are as bent as I think they are.

How does this affect the ban he has been given. Has he already served a match ban by not playing last Sunday? Or can he now start playing until the appeal is heard? If the latter can he play on Sunday and does last Sundays game not count as a band game? Therefore meaning he has missed 2 games for no reason. It does seem late for an appeal. Maybe if the band is reduced the missed games count as ‘time served’. If the appeal is not upheld then nothing lost.

Thing is didn’t the RFL have them down as same offence (contrary behaviour, lifting an injured player) but a different charge TG grade F and SM grade C.
SM had a high tackle 1 game charge from the previous week successfully overturned TG had no previous disciplinary charges against him.
In every respect TG was clearly unfairly discriminated against by the RFL which is completely against the spirit and a blatant contradiction of the “tackle it” campaign.

The Greatest Game, er no, more like the The Greatest Shame RFL.

Yes my mistake, same offence different grade ,and like you say no previous from gwaze , several from matautia.

He’s served two so far , York and Workington.

I would be looking to appeal some of the bans from the york game too larroyers lifting on pauli pauli he for me flips himself into landing in a awkward position and this seems to be creeping into the game more and more and the only way to stop it is to stop penalizing the tacklers and start punishing the players play acting to try and get others in trouble.

Fenton Rogers won’t be playing this week for us as he has been given a 2 match ban

The RFL’s duplicity in all of this is clearly shown in the different grade for the same offence prior to it being sent to the tribunal.
They wilfully and deliberately gave a lower grade against SM precisely to cap and lower the limit on the length of a ban to a maximum of 3 games because it involved not only a SL player but one who played for one of the big wigs in St Helens who they didn’t want to upset.
All this to do with stamping out discrimination when by their actions show they are one of the biggest perpetrators is sad and simple hypocrisy.

According to Facebook the Saints player has had his ban reduced from three games to one now. You couldn't write it!

O.K. Still 8 versus 3!

Titus unsuccessful and the 8 match ban remains but because the appeal wasn't frivolous there have been no further matches added. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/di ... -attempts/ Discrimination Definition."Treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people." = 8 vs 3. "Discrimination" not kick it out but kick it in with the boot RFL. You are an absolute disgrace to the game and to the individuals you target RFL.

Titus unsuccessful and the 8 match ban remains but because the appeal wasn't frivolous there have been no further matches added. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/di ... -attempts/ Discrimination Definition."Treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people." = 8 vs 3. "Discrimination" not kick it out but kick it in with the boot RFL. You are an absolute disgrace to the game and to the individuals you target RFL.