Because it's the RFL - I'm sure they use some kind of random number generator to dish out bans.

yep, this week it was "Arthur" and set of balls "number 3"

Imo Meli should have got 6 matches(quite a lot of your fans have said the same) but I totally agree about Chase he should have got at least 8 matches.

What a ridiculous response to mention a player from 30 years ago. And where was this supposed lecture??

Well it's a good job the RL dont listen to people like you and SaintFan isnt it.

Isn't the 4 match ban irrelevant anyway as Meli is out due to him breaking?dislocating his arm? If so, the RFL have missed a trick as they could have banned him for longer knowing he can't play anyway and thus showing they are clamping down on dangerous play.

If they did that then god forbid decided to start showing consistency they would have made a rod for their own backs as every clumsy challenge would have triggered an 8 match ban. They were only as harsh as they were because it was a TV game with 9 million slow motion replays making it look far worse than it was. I'm glad it was the BBC though as they called it as they saw it where Slaphead and Wiggy would have been screaming for the death penalty like some idiots on these forums.

The fact he is injured should play absolutely no part in the ban. What a ridiculous suggestion. If they had given him a 72 match ban then they'd have to be consistent with that, so what's the point?!

It was not clumsy,as you keep saying, I was a vicious pre meditated high tackle and replays did not make it look worse than it was. Meli has broken his arm because of the force used.

It was clumsy. Your description is a joke and shows you dont have a clue of the meaning of the words you actually type. The alternative is your trolling.

I once broke my arm tacking someone legally so that getting injured proves nothing.

There arnt many 'vicious' or 'pre meditated' challenges these days although I have seen a few , most of them were commited by the late Terry Newton and I remember a couple by our very own Sonny Nickle.

Your description as "clumsy" is the joke. This is how most people saw it including the Rfl Disciplinary panel,and explains why Meli escaped a longer ban.

Rule: 15.1(b) Detail: High Tackle – Intentional – stiff arm tackle – no attempt to tackle legitimately – violent Grade E

The committee are no doubt this was a serious act of misconduct and had the potential for serious injury which thankfully did not occur. The committee give the player credit for admitting guilt to a very reckless tackle. The player does have an excellent disciplinary record over a 15 year first grade career in Super League and the NRL and feel that a 4 match suspension and a £300 is appropriate in this in instance.

The above highlighted statements will tell you that it was not deliberate (Word not used at all in RFL report) and Meli is not, in any way, that type of player.