Gagai will pick up a decent ban. If that was an NRL game he would have been sent off.

Lots of incidents in that Origin game that would have got long bans here and red cards.... the NRL however have a brain between their ears and know how to make the game damn good.

To a degree but Origin is also refereed very differently to a normal NRL game as well.

Very true. Gagai threw at least 7 punches to the head. He should have got red carded.
Going by present situation over here he would be banned for life if that was a SL game.

As everyone said fantastic game and not condoning violence but a very different approach in Aus. When the world cup starts a lot of stuff copping bans currently in superleague will be overlooked when Australia and NZ play

And rightly so!

Harry Newman has been unsuccessful in his appeal against the extra game of his suspension and will miss this Saturdays game at
Toulouse

No surprise. I’m amazed the club wasted everyone’s time!

Strange - Leeds should appeal that.

I think in part it’s about stopping the kicker putting everyone else back onside by chasing through.

The club is very certain that the appeal wasn't frivolous. But I doubt they really expected to get much out of the system as it's currently composed.

The club can think what it likes - the problem it has it that it’s player pleaded not guilty to something he was plainly guilty of and then they appealed it.

Take the Leeds slant out of it and I think you’d agree it was a frivolous appeal. There were fans on here admitting as such before the first appeal was held.

Not a good episode for Leeds and some poor decision making.

I'm just telling you what i've heard from the club - which is basically that they had evidence of similar incidents that weren't given this treatment therefore how could drawing that point out be frivolous.

The two match ban was reasonable from my point of view in its own right. But it was unreasonable in the context of previous incidents.

I don't think the appeal was frivolous at all. The original appeal might have had little chance of succeeding, but Leeds clearly didn't just go in and say 'its not fair, reduce the ban' - they put together a case with some evidence of from other games. They then appealed the description of the original appeal as frivolous and the consequent additional game ban.

If the panel is going to apply this sort of thing it should be very clear and upfront, as it is in the NRL - 2 games if you plead guilty, 3 games if you fight and lose the case. No adding extra games on post appeal. That makes crystal clear to everyone where they stand. At the moment the disciplinary puts some of that out but then has this additional right to extend bans. Its utter kangaroo court territory.

Note here I'm not saying the original ban was too short. I am saying that clubs should be allowed to put in defences and not have them rejected as 'frivolous' if they genuinely believe there is a case and provide evidence to back that up. A perfectly reasonable outcome from the original appeal would have been that the ban was upheld despite whatever evidence Leeds produced. Or, if the system was as in the NRL at least Leeds and Newman would have known in advance that fighting the charge could lead to an extra game. They may well not have done so if that was the case.

The 2 game ban was accepted.
This appeal was against the additional game given for the previous appeal.
They were trying to demonstrate that the previous appeal was not frivolous.