3 games for a "reckless" challenge, that's strange the experts on the VT were telling us we were wrong for calling it that and it was CLEARLY deliberate!

3 Matches - I bet he doesn't appeal

A psychologist I am not but, I have deduced you are the cock of the forum and No longer shall I mess with you..... good day oh wise one








Feck me what a weapon.......

It's very sad when you see a keyboard warriors like Gunk taking such satisfaction in defending such a dangerous tackle as Rangi's

You mean after Cas fans have proven to be right in saying it was reckless and not intentional.

In fact if you go back at least 2 people said 3 games and a fine....so spot on

Of course you and all the idiots on the VT know more than the RFL, no seriously of course you do.

It's turned into a witch hunt and to me, shows why RL is a minority sport - the fans.

Proven right? You really don't get it do you.

We all knew he wouldn't get more than the maximum set by the charge. That the RFL disciplinary is inconsistent at best and spineless at worst proves absolutely nothing. The argument (and I'm amazed you haven't graasped this after dozens of pages on the issue) is not the ban he would get, but the ban he should have got.

The only thing proven on all these threads is that with one or two exceptions, only Cas fans and the RFL think 3 games is a suitable punishment.

Ok, well now that he's been charged and punished you've no need to be here. Right? So off you toddle to your own forum. Thanks for your input.

Unfortunately, they've been whipped up into a frenzy and it ended up being a witch hunt.

There's been calls for everything from deportation to banned for life from the game, and people wonder why the game is a minority, well it's clearly the fans who will moan about anything, no matter what.

Bet there's a worse challenge on Friday that doesn't cause the same outrage.

If there is a worse 'tackle' on Friday, lets hope Mr Chase is on the receiving end then.

I'm sure there's an element of that Gronk.
I try and be as balanced as I can which, given allegiances in sport, can make it difficult. But nevertheless, I try and remain objective.

Myself, and quite a few others are as hacked off with the disciplinary processes as owt else. Just leaving aside which teams we support for the mo.
An illegal challenge of that magnitude that sees a player banned for only 3 matches may well be percieved as an inadquate response to causing an injury that could put a player out of the game for the rest of the season - if not longer.
Not so long ago Chase would have recieved a longer ban.
Meanwhile. at the same disciplinary hearing. Stankevich gets fined £1000 (£700 more than Chase) for calling the referee a .
The responses do not feel (to me) proportionate, not that it really matters what the chuff I think!

no offence to any body i think it was a good hit what rangi did that my option

Which shows what a c*ck you are.

Was a poor tackle, as I have said before, it it had been Liam Finn going through on Danny Orr or something, I would have been calling for capital punishment for sure.

3 games, extremely lucky in my view - I felt slightly longer might be needed. Having said all that, it's over now and I can't wait to see one of our academy products getting their shot, be it in the halves or at full back - or both. Bring it on so we can forget this now. tomorrows chip paper.

I'm not sure that's going to be possible. I might be wrong but I think chase got a 3 match ban. Wake up numb nuts.

Just seen some stuff on SadBook about people thinking Rangi can use one of his bans on the week off the CC in the 20's, my interpretation is he can't because he isn't age elligible.

So the week off doesn't help.

I actually think that rule needs looking at and clearing up, becuase if a 19yr old player committed the offense, then could take one of his bans in the 20's, but based purely on age seemingly you can't???

Anyway, back to work.