No one has said Manu should not be given time.
Saints fan has suggested he be dropped for Greenwood, but that's it.

Manu had some of the better stats going forwards from the last game with Walmsley. Having not seen the game, I would not suggest dropping anyone.

However given our pack is seen as weak, I would suggest Wellens to FB and an extra forward on the bench would help.

I Cant really remember the incident, but i could understand being found guilty of a grade a offence and just paying a fine but i thought grade B is a minimum of 1 game or have i made that up?

My point stays the same. Why should anyone suggest Manu get dropped with that pudding still playing the way he is?

I can't wait to use the old "told you so" when you all discover he's up there with the worst signings we've made in the super league era.

I don't get this hated of Manu from a few people

He is our best second rower.

Even against Catalan despite it being his first game back after 8 weeks out he made more metres than any of the other forwards bar Walmsley. His tackle stats were also comparable with the other forwards bar Thompson and Roby who were in a different league.

Manu for me is a very dangerous running back rower but he is the type of player who performs at his best when the pack is going forward.

Saints soft pack hinders him as he then has to do hard yards and that isn't his game.

The RFL website will probably tell you. I haven't read it, but it could be that he's only ever been cited once before (and that was really Scott Moore's fault) about 5 years ago and that's been it. So his previous record may well have played a part, and Robes is squeeky clean on the field.

I'm not sure, it seems they make up the rules as they go along.

The walmsley one is disgusting IMO when just last week nobody was banned for the punch up in the Leeds v Leigh game and the was more players in.

Like I said, not got a clue on the Roby situation.

I feel sorry for him. He gets no good ball at all and used like a prop. It's no coincidence we've not seen the Manu from hull rampaging down the flanks making breaks.

I think with Walsh with us this year and when Manu gets fit, we might see a glimpse of the old Manu.

A grade B is 1-2 matches but there is always the panel's discretion to award a fine or to find the player not guilty. They found Robes guilty but presumably not guilty enough to ban him, or took his previous record into account. The detail isn't on the website yet but if you're obsessed with it and are prepared to wait, in a few days the explanation will be posted on the RFL's site. It always is.

I remember the incident because Elima drew attention to it. Makes me laugh that it was Elima. He doesn't go a season without at least one ban.

What hatred is that?

Im not obsessed with it but just want clarity as it doesn't make sense, like i said grade a and i wouldn't question it but grade b is a minimum of 1 game. Be interesting to see the new exemption they make for this or will they use the "exemplary previous discipline record" (not suggesting Roby doesn't).

Who hates him???

It was one, probably throw away comment, more about Greenwood coming back than Manu.

If I had said Greenwood was dropped for Wellens the comment replying to me could have been the same.

Why not drop the pudding for Thompson or Saveilo or Richards or walker?

Surely 11 hit ups in two games and no one on one tackles must warrant being dropped ?

How did a thread about Roby and walmsley being up before the beak become about masoe and Manu?

A question was asked about why was Greenwood not playing in Catalan. I answered suggesting with Manu available that it was likely he was stood down for that game.

Then it all went big bannana with some very heavy reading between the lines into a hatred of Manu to be forced out the team.

2.8 SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR EACH GRADE OF OFFENCE

GRADE NORMAL SUSPENSION
RANGE
A NFA -1
B 1 – 2
C 2 -3
D 3-5
E 4-8
F 8+ or period suspension


2.9 NORMAL SUSPENSION RANGES – GUIDELINES ONLY

Players and Clubs should be aware that the normal suspension ranges are guidelines only and the
Tribunal has the discretion to step outside of the normal ranges in the following three
circumstances:

- If the Compliance Manager has advised the Player that, in the light of specified aggravating
factors, he is going to seek a higher sanction and the Tribunal agree that such factors mean a
higher sanction should be imposed;
- If the Tribunal has previously advised the Player that it will apply a higher sanction next time
that Player is found to have committed a misconduct Offence; or
- If the Tribunal feels that in the light of the aggravating and mitigating factors present it is
appropriate to step outside of the normal suspension range (irrespective of whether this has
been requested by the Compliance Manager).


Guidelines only according to RFL website.