I've not seen any on the tv as not watched it back. From what I gather, the Burns one wasn't intentional but did make contact to the face. If he's caught him on the jaw then it's still a ban. The Ah Van tackle against Wigan was never intentional but was 100% red card and ban.

Burns did catch him in the face, but the main differences between that one and the Ah Van one vs Wigan were:
1. Ah Van had a clenched fist, Burns was open palm
2. Burns was off balance following Carney's hand off (which could explain for him catching him high_
3. Burns didnt KO Carney

If Travis Burns is banned, then any tackle that makes contact above the ball should also be a ban regardless of impact etc.

Furthermore, not quite sure how Burns is charged and Morley isnt fter seeing his "tackle" on SL full Time...he made contact wih the head and his feet came off the floor as he jumped into it. We have already seen Westwood get away with a similar tackle in R1 and imo these are far more dangerous and worse offences than what Burns did

Burns has been banned for one match.

Amor has been banned for two matches.

Crazy, the RFL are setting themselves us for a fall if they ban people for a game for a high shot. No worse than any other high shot this season.

Can understand the Amor ban, but the Burns one is ridiculous. High tackle yes, but nothing more.

The burns ban is terrible.

If he had not been handed off the tackle would have been fine. But I've just seen SL fulltime and far far worse has been let go.

One rule for TV games another for ones not on TV.

Amor well fair enough.

I'd go as far as saying there is a worse high shot in every single game of Super League. Saints should get on the soap box about this and cite every single high shot against them. I can't believe no one at the club has mentioned the fact that only games on Sky see players being banned. What stat was it someone raised on here, something like 14 of the 15 charges brought this season have been from the televised games. That is unacceptable and utterly farcical.

13 charges have been raised by the rfl after 3 rounds, 12 of which came from games televised on Sky, ie 92% of all charges, from 44% of the games (thus far).

Trial by tv indeed.

Add to that the number of times Saints have been on the telly and will be in the coming early rounds we can only conclude that Saints will be in for a higher proportion of bans than other teams who are and will be less televised.

Got to agree with Wakey Saint and Saddened. Now that Hock has moved on Justin Carney must be the dirtiest player in Super League. I accept that Elima is a niggler but not an outright thug like Carney!

And it won,t get any better, I think in our first 8 games, 7 of them are on TV. With the tries heavily scrutunised you get the feeling we are being handicapped with this over exposure.

Have we appealled the Burns Ban?

Saints reported that they challenged the original charge and it was downgraded to a careless tackle (as opposed to a reckless one I presume) so Burns got one match instead of two.

I don't think Burns was banned because of the tackle. I think he was banned because he is Burns!

The Amor tackle deserved a ban.

No arguements there Amors was reckless and dangerous.