WELL DONE LEEDS

Quote: Juan Cornetto "We agree Tomkins is not Ghandi - but but he has earned a reputation for violence.'"

Earned with who? The referees, the disciplinary panel. You should have little difficulty pointing to the other instances he's been sent off and banned then to justify this apparent reputation?

Quote: Juan Cornetto "The part highlighted above in red was the judgement of the panel having reviewed the evidence - Note

So you're saying (in the disciplinary panel's view) that if the initial contact is made with the chest it doesn't matter where it ends up?

Odd then that the disciplinary panel on the Tomkins incident go on to conclude as their reason for the decision to impose a ban'The committee feel that while the initial contact was with the chest, the forearm was always going up and ended up in the face of your opponent. This had the potential for injury. This view was backed by the referee who felt that the incident warranted a dismissal. Therefore the committee feel that a 2 match suspension is to be imposed but no fine in this case.'[/i

I'm still finding it difficult to spot the dis-similarities between the Tomkins and Cross incidents. The panel are even using the referee's report as justification despite dismissing his view that the contact was made with a raised elbow. Without seeing a raised elbow does Ganson/touch judge dismiss?

Quote: Juan Cornetto "In both cases the ref was not unsighted. With Tomkins he was sure that the contact with the face was intentional. In the Cross case the ref was sure that there was no intent and only worth a penalty.'"

How do you know this? The fact Ganson chose to consult with his touch judge (who it appeared had a much clearer view of the incident when reviewing the TV footage) would suggest otherwise. This is classic Ganson by the way. Not my decision - only acting on the touch judge's advise. You hear him using this line all the time to the players during games and indeed appeared to do so in the opening couple of minutes to Jamie Peacock on Saturday re a forward pass decision against Webb. However when he sees an indescretion he acts (without the need to consult, stop or even think - often harshly), as evidenced by his sending off of Cahill.

Quote: Juan Cornetto "Because they did not react against Cross which normall6y happens when players think they have been deliberatly fouled eg the Tomkins case.'"

The Castleford players did react. The fact they didn't react violently proves nothing. The fact Wigan and Hull players reacted violently proves nothing also. It has already been established tempers were running high in that game immediately prior to the Tomkins/Yeaman incident and indeed centred on the same two players.

Quote: Juan Cornetto "Sorry I meant last season funnily enough against a Tomkins!'"

Fair enough on both counts. Apology accepted.

Quote: Juan Cornetto "Just pointing out example that most forwards fall foul of use of the forearm at some stage. But there is a difference between reckless with intent and just clumsy.'"

The only difference here that I see is a system where one hand washes the other. Referee sends a player off - the Disciplinary panel finds just cause to back that decision up. Referee doesn't send a player off - the Disciplinary panel find excuses to back that decision up also.

The more I review the Ben Cross one on Daryl Clark the worse it gets.

Fortunately coach McDermott saved the disciplinay a job this week.