I do think Grade D is Harsh but as soon as i saw the incident i thought he may walk for that.Then when they showed it again i knew Tetavino was in real trouble.You obviously see it different, i just hope the officials are consistent on this.On refs i do this on a whole they do are good job.I have never been one for ref bashing.

Briscoe
Oledzki
Leeming
Prior
Martin
Mellor
Tetevano
Dwyer
Sutcliffe
Smith
Thompson
Sutcliffe
Walters
Briscoe
Donaldson
Broadbent
O’Connor
Hall
Edwards
Gannon
Eastmond

Broadbent
Briscoe Sutcliffe Hall / Edwards Briscoe
Sutcliffe Eastmond
Oledzki Leeming Prior
Martin Mellor
Walters

Dwyer Smith Donaldson Thompson / O’Connor / Gannon.

Tetevano, Hall / Edwards

From 21 if L.Sutcliffe, Thompson & Eastmond are fit too play I reckon Agar will go with.

Broadbent
T.Briscoe
Edwards
A.Sutcliffe
L.Briscoe
L.Sutcliffe
Eastmond
Oldezki
Leeming
Prior
Mellor
Martin
Smith.

Subs

Dwyer
Thompson
Walters
Donaldson

Tetevano will more than likely receive some sort of ban even if club appeal.

He wasn't sent off because it was late. He was shown the red because it was direct contact with his shoulder onto the player's head. Zane had been putting pressure on kickers earlier in the match too, they focused on a specific one in the first half but because it wasn't dangerous (no contact with the head) it was deemed legal.

Any hits on Gale from earlier matches will have been reviewed and afaik nobody picked up any bans for them.

I agree refs do a good job. Just think the directives are wrong, are too harsh on players.
But hey ho... If the sport wants to hand out long suspensions to its best players, for slightly mistimed tackles then who am I to argue. Must have a huge fanbase already....

In terms of the Grade D, I've watched it back at full speed, it's not actually that late... part of the issue is that they watch the replays in slow mo and conclude that it's late!

To me it's really hard to tell if it's high or not. It is bordering on a shoulder charge and is very close to being high, but I doubt he'll get 5 games for that!

I know we don't want to see regular red cards, but thought up to that point Zane was immense. Showed exactly what we've been missing for years.

Will be gutted if he gets five. I think the best we can hope for is three maybe two.

seems they are cracking down on this within the game so they could maybe make an example of him with this one.

Totally agree with this, I think we've been missing that kind of aggression for a while, now the issue with this is (quite rightly) the game are trying to get rid of dangerous aspects of the play, so unfortunately a player Like Zane will always be walking a bit of a tightrope I suppose.

Bordering on one ? His arm is clearly by his side,it's as clear a shoulder as you will see and it hits the head. Given you have lost a player recently to ongoing concussion then isn't it prudent the the RFL punish shoulders to the head ? All he had to do was lift his arm up and it would of been 10 minutes.

Not quite as convinced as you that it was his head but it was a sending off and to me a two to 3 game ban and yes you are right it needs eradicating from the game , its just the consistency from the Refs/disciplinary that always worries me

Three would seem about right. Don't think he'd be daft enough to try a repeat and enough of a deterrent to make all but the genuinely thuggish think twice.

It really wasn't as clear as you'll see, if you want that watch Bailey vs Fa'asavalu. Zane had his left arm up to tackle and the right arm came up a fraction after impact - if you watch a hundred tackles you'll see at least 50 where the first contact is made by the shoulder - it's not in and of itself illegal.

As for it being contact with the head. I've yet to see conclusive proof of that. He definitely impacts shoulder to shoulder and Fages whacks his head on the ground but I couldn't say for certain that his shoulder hits his head.

It was late, certainly - but nowhere near as late as I first thought.

These arguments will be being made by Leeds, and much better than I'm making them, but to imply that it's as clear cut as you're suggesting is simply wrong. It might be a shoulder charge and it might be to the head, but after watching it repeatedly the only things I know for certain are that it was late and it was hard. Those two factors do not add up to a 5 game ban.

All fair points but if you read the charge, it's for striking. No mention of a shoulder charge or contact with the head. Reckless and late seems to be the jist of it