only it didnt.

Wilkin hit him about a nano-second after he had kicked the ball and was commited. The hit itself was also legal.

Committed? To what? Wilkin didn't attempt to charge down the ball, didn't attempt to effect a tackle. He hit him late and led with his forearms around the shoulders and chin.

he charged the kicker and was fully commited. There was nothing wrong with what he did provided he didnt forearm him in the face, which he didnt do. It was no worse than What Hoffman did to Gary Wheeler which had all the Saints fans up in arms but when looked at in the cold
light of day ny the disciplinary panel they found nothing wrong with it. You can do that. Its only a late illegal hit if you hit the guy, after the ball has gone when you knew the ball had gone and could have pulled out of the hit. Wilkin couldnt have done that.

Don't worry. Wilkin was aiming for the ball. Everything else is irrelevant for your average impartial Bulls fan, even if he had caught him on the jaw.

Yet he missed the ball by a country mile and elbowed him in the face. So lets see....reckless tackle...2 match ban?

That isn't true though is it?
Players aren't stupid and they adapt behaviour when necessary to gain the most benefit. Consider: Players put hands in at the ptb. They do this in the hope of gaining possession by dislodging the ball and the referee giving a knock on. [iIF[/i the ref does give a knock on, this shows that the practice works and will only result in it being repeated.
Scenario 2: Player puts hand in and the ref gives a penalty. This gives the direct opposite outcome to what the transgressor was hoping for, thereby showing that the idea of putting the hand in isn't a good idea so it is less likely to be repeated.

So the likely outcome would more probably been that the penalties would have nipped the 'hands in' in the bud, rather than every set would have had a penalty.

Exactly. In the same way if you only get back 8m at the ptb and just stand ever so slightly not square and not get penalised then you keep going. You get pinged everytime, you stop.

You forgot to take off the "Saints Reduction Factor" when calculating the ban.

Standard suspension / Saints Reduction Factor = Actual ban for Saints player.

Therefore (2 / 3) = 0.666

0.666 < 1 therefore actual ban equals "less than 1 match".

Therefore ZERO.

If he got him in the mush it's >2 matches, although I'd give him 8 for being a sh it. Though it will be a joke & a disgrace & all the review panels bias. One rule for Saints, one for the rest.

so basically we have covered all of our bases because if he gets banned then you are proven correct. If he doesnt get banned then its biased.

Alternatively, in the real world if he doesnt get banned its because he has done nothing wrong a la Hoffman on Wheeler.

I think the best evidence would be a video replay that shows whether he goes high or not.

Whether the RFL does or doesn't award a ban proves nothing, and it's been like this for a very long time.