shocking!!! but not suprised.

He intentionally punched (the RFL's words) but unintentionally connected with the eye area. Where then did he intend to hit?


The precedent basically says you can punch intentionally and then say you intended to hit another part of the face and get away with it. Does that not seem wrong to you?

You are looking at it too literally, too black or white. It was a prod with the ball carrying hand. He didn't know which part of Stosic's anatomy was lying on him, it was just a "Oh get off me" push/prod. It wasn't worthy of being called a punch.

The impact would have made a 3 year old giggle, that's how hard it was.

Good ,the great man deserves a break.

Eye socket or cheek bone?....Then you can all agree its a good thing to let the perpatrator off with a warning because although he threw a punch at the king

he didnt actually intend to hurt him....

Neither,just like Stosic.

the right decision imo.

What a joke. So he punched him "to get them off him"? Good god. I despair for society then with you lot in it.

And he didn't intend to punch him "in the eye"? Oh, that's ok then. Let him off.

Glad to see a good example set for all the kids following the game.

Many might shout at me for this but what is the case for charging Wakefield for 'bringing the game in disrepute"?

It seems to me they made a LOT of this so called injury and only AFTER the player got a caution only announced that he hadn't broken anything and would be fit for the weekend.

To me that is a terrible way of trying to force a longer ban on a player for a very (in the context of the game and other games) minor incident.

possibly, but wakey's reaction makes no sense, we're not playing them again (possibly playoffs) but we are playing the closest rivals for league places, so why no come out and say he's not really hurt, nothing in it?

Yeah, good idea, lets charge Wakefield for having a player with the temerity to get his face in the way of Cunningham's fat fist.