Senior kicked out. He didn't get away with it he was correctly penalised by referee Bentham (Richards missed the resultant penalty attempt at goal IIRC), he was charged with a Grade A offence, summoned to appear before the disciplinary, came away with a punishment that fell within the range for a Grade A offence.

I haven't seen it yet but didn't McGoldrick get penalised today at Wigan for a similar offence?

None of the above is in dispute. What is in dispute is:

1) As one of the worst cases of kicking out seen, how much further do you have to go to get the maximum 1 match ban under the current classification?

2) As 3 other less serious offences were awarded bans that weekend, why wasn't Senior also banned?

3) Should the Grade A classification be changed, or indeed a new assignment made for "Kicking out with connection to the head or face" with a higher grade offence given the high potential for injury compared to high tackles / chicken wing tackles / grapple tackles / spear tackles?

Question 1 is yet to be answered by anyone. Question 2, well, obviously there's the current classification, but in direct comparison to say leading with the elbow, the classification is clearly wrong. Which leads to question 3. To which the answer has to be "Yes".

What we're seeing here is that you can deliberately kick a player in the head (in the tackle) and only receive a one match ban, even if you kill him. However, throw him onto his back (unlikely to cause injury, although there is potential) and you may get... well... several matches. Or even months.

That's inconsistent, pure and simple.

Not for the first time ...... I agree with Nick ..... I mean Hopie.

Hark at Mr Mature with the avatar of a 5 year old!

You're a one eyed hypocrite, simple as.

Or, more accurately a very emotional one eyed hypocrite whose confused drivel on this subjects goes round in circles.

1) Take a look at your avtar. For a grown man to produce that is truly pitiful.

2) You insist on claiming Senior's kick was deliberate, ignoring the findings of the disciplinary panel that found that it was not. Are you a mind reader perchance?

3) You claim you conveniently missed the events when Wigan players were charged with the same offence (and in one case was found to have kicked out at the player deliberately - unlike Senior - and in the other the panel were unsure of intent). Funny that. Conveniently missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged: hypocrite and liar = zero credibility.

4) Despite your laughable claim to have even missed your own players commiting the offence and being charged you describe Senior's 'offence' to be the worst of its kind. Your like 'Tommy' being called up as a key witness - the deaf and blind Fishta swears he saw and heard everything m'lud.

5)You defend players like Terry Newton yet describe players like Cunningham, Diskin and Bailey as thugs. You sad, sad man Your jealousy of Leeds and saints is like a cancer eating away at your capacity for rational thought yet alone comment.

6) Senior was charged with an offence for which there is a range of punishments available. The actions of the panel are entirely consistent with their previous actions when 2 Wigan players were charged with the same offence - you know the offences you pretend you didn't know about


Yet you make deluded claims about not being able to have a rational debate. How the chuff do you have a rational debate with a tired, emotional fruitcake?

Nice find TS! Is that Fishta's credibility I hear sinking? www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=698

...says it should be a C.... that would suggest there isn't the consistency with previous decisions after all?