Come on Andy, be serious, Wilkin deliberately pushed Keith, after the ball had been played and therefore of the ball, face first into the grass by the back of his neck. Keith then got into Wilkin''s face about it and it went to verbal and handbags from both. Keith gave Wilkin a b1tch slap, Wilkin carried on holding Senior and he got a punch in the face.

Correct call, given that Bentham or the touchy (or Sky for that matter) had not seen the off the ball dig by Wilkin. Sin Bin and no more. If Bentham and the touchy had seen the Wilkin push down, it might have never got as far as it did and if it had Wilkin should have gone with him! End of, next game for both players please!

Wilkin pulling Keith over during the play the ball was a tactic Saints played all match, can't really see that being the reason Keith smacked him. When they both got to their feet something pretty bad must have been said for him to react like that and carry on afterwards aswell with Gilmour when Wilkin skulked off behind his teammates. Pretty sure after the match Keith was telling him to "ing apologise now" aswell, that wouldn't have been because of the interference.

5m from the line. Eastmond's running at Burrow, Hall's covering his winger, you really think Keith should be holding back and leaving Burrow to defend the try line against Eastmond?

From the PTB Keith was working. When Saints were going to their left he was following them and holding his defensive line. When Saints switched he followed them, along with Burrow and Hall. Bailey and one of the markers stood still at that time. When Keith started following Eastmond he was directly in front of Bailey, when Eastmond passed inside there was a 10m gap because Bailey was dawdling, along with the marker.

If Bailey had matched the effort of Keith the try would probably not have been scored. If Keith had matched the workrate of Bailey then Eastmond would have been powering over Burrow and scoring himself.

I am being serious - if you land a full-on punch to the head of an opponent then you should be seeing red rather than yellow. Senior had plenty of time to think about how to react to the situation, it's not like Wilkin came running at him fists flailing and he had to defend himself. He could have just pushed Wilkin away, he could have carried on with the grabbing and shoving that was going on but he chose to escalate it into a boxing match.

Whatever Wilkin did to cause the situation in the first place doesn't excuse Senior both choosing to escalate it and then ignoring the instructions of the referee and TJ by wanting to carry it on for some time afterwards.

Should have been looking at a dismissal, and should still be looking at a one game ban IMO.

Don't think it was the sole reason Keith smacked him, it was the start of the handbags and I am sure many word were then exchanged and things got worse from there. Wilkin probably deserved a punch in the face and Senior did deserve 10 minutes to think about it, but no more!

This incident was right after the hilarious Gilmour smacking of Sean Long and the mellee that happened afterwards. Passions would've been high, and Wilkin actling like a hard man when he's not was asking for it.

Except there wasn't a winger, as Gardner was infield having played the ball following the previous tackle. Flannery had already started to make the run inside Eastmond at that point, so you had Hall and Burrow to look after Eastmond if he continued running towards the touchline.

Senior over-committed to following Eastmond when he should have passed him on seen Flannery making the inside run. Bailey didn't fill in fast enough. They're both culpable for the try IMO, not just Bailey.

The incident that happened before this, Gilmour tried to smack Lee Smith, who was being confronted, and held, by Sean Long. As it happened Gilmour ended up smacking Sean Long, but the basic fact is that he was attempting to smack a player who couldn't defend himself.

Surely that is worse than smacking someone who is stood in front of you and has ample time to protect themselves?

Ok, I do agree about Keith over-reacting, and I am sure I used those exact words earlier and therefore can see you point about maybe a red. I disagree, but can see your point. But a one match ban? We have no idea what Wilkin and Gilmour said to Keith and maybe Mr Bentham does?

The touch judge was giving a clear indication (apart from actually saying the words -red card) that it was a red card offence. I'm not sure Bentham bottled it, I think he just used his judgement. There were 2-3 minutes left and the game was over, Wilkin was not incapacitated and the game was already at boiling point. Also, a red or yellow surely won't make any difference to the disciplinary verdict.
There are many other examples of yellow cards or no action at all for punches like that, likewise a red would have been hard to argue with.

If I recall correctly, Lee Smith was pretty much the aggressor in that whole confrontation up until that point. He'd attempted to take Gilmour's head off with the tackle, then swung a cheap right hander in on a grounded player.

But had Gilmour connected then yes, he should have been looking at disciplinary action himself.

I agree that Keith over-committed with Eastmond. But seeing as it was 5m out and Eastmond was faced by Burrow, I don't think it's a major error.

Standing having a stroll, which is what Bailey did, is a major error. Bailey deserved the 8o11ocking he got.

Let me guess, you went to see the Floodlit 9's and can't wait to see more, so you're trying to get so many players banned that you do see it soon?

Not at all, what I'm trying to "get" is a sport where players don't feel they have the right to knock the living sh*t out of each other illegally like we had in the 70s.

Shoulder first but if it's initial aggressor you're applying here wasn't Wilkin that with Senior?



Smith attacked the ball, Gilmour knocked on, result.