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.

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'

The other thing is that several times in the past there have been occasions when one player or players have been given a greater sentence than another for exactly or the same offence. The RFL have always countered allegations of biasedness in these cases by pointing out that the player who was more greatly punished was done so because he had 'previous' or a bad history of disciplinary problems and therefore deserved a bigger punishment than someone who had a relatively good record.

We have been told that Richie Mathers was up for the same offence as Ferres. So how do they explain giving him exactly the same ban. Mathers was sent off twice with Wigan last year and has already served a 2 match ban this season, whilst Ferres as far as I know is pretty much squeaky clean in comparison to him , although I will stand to be corrected on that. It is like a first offender going to court and being punished exactly the same as a serial offender for the same offence.

I will be deeply unhappy with our club if we do not appeal against this unjust punishment.

confirmation we won't be appealing against the ban Ferres received... Meanwhile, Tigers won't appeal against the one-match ban which will keep second-row Brett Ferres out of Sunday's return to former club Wakefield. Matterson said: "We've looked at it closely. Probably one week was fair, there was certainly no intent there." full story www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/t ... 5489532.jp

confirmation we won't be appealing against the ban Ferres received... Meanwhile, Tigers won't appeal against the one-match ban which will keep second-row Brett Ferres out of Sunday's return to former club Wakefield. Matterson said: "We've looked at it closely. Probably one week was fair, there was certainly no intent there." full story www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/t ... 5489532.jp