Well of course you do! Everyone does! Because Cunningham plays for Saints and at all costs, Saints must be stopped. However, of all our players, I would say Cunningham (and Wellens is another) is so NOT a cheap shot player. Wilkin, yes; Cunningham, no. Everyone who accuses him of that is talking out of their arris.

get over yourself you sound like a wigan fan,i can assure you nobody in cas gives a flying one about saints as where no threat to you neither is wakefield,what cunningham did deserved a ban and your right he`s not a cheap shot bloke but that shouldnt be enough to give him emunity from ever getting a ban.

That old chestnut. Someone disagrees so they must be against Saints. I'm not fussed about Saints and their success, fair play to them.

I just don't see the equality in the system where Player A can get away with punching someone in face deliberately, regardless of injury or not, whilst player B gets cited and banned for an accidental high tackle with no maliciousness intended and a fairly good previous record.

Cunningham has a very good record. Also, he didn't 'get away with it'. He got a formal caution. That's on his record for the next three months, which means that if he does anything wrong again, he could well get a ban (where he might not have done had he not had the caution on his record). The RFL stated that they were giving Cunningham the benefit of the doubt where intent was concerned. They believe he did not intend to hit the eye but they did call the action reckless, which it was. It was a reckless action borne out of frustration. Had the RFL believed Cunningham had been aiming for the eye, which would have been a malicious thing to do, then he would have been banned.

oh would I like to see the roses games back on

Ferres's was reckless. He did not intend to hit the head. So it's still the same thing dressed up.

The only difference is that one was deliberate, the other wasn't. The latter got the worst punishment. It's unfair.

It was a cheap shot Friday night the fact that he is not a 'cheap shot player' hardly makes it ok.

I honestly can't believe Cunningham got away with a deliberate punch to the face. Even more unbelievable is that excuse that "he did not mean to contact with the eye"!. Does that make head-high takcles legitimate as long as they don't contact with the eye?

Spot on there pal, both Cas and Wakey need Saints to be at full strength so that it gives them a better chance to beat our playoff rivals.

The real problem is the lack of transparency in the UK disciplinary system.

Just about every week Cas seem to have 1 or 2 players considered for some transgression or other despite very few of the incidents being noted at the time by the ref.

Its about time the RFL employed a totting up system similar to that used by the NRL.

Benefit of the doubt - that's hilarious.

I wouldn't call taking performance enhancing drugs a 'very good record'