It doesn't make any difference to us now does it? Hope he gets let off then KR can have their strongest team to play Leeds.

I know where you're coming from. Should have walked for it, vert nasty.

one match ban according to sportinglife

Obviously you were seeing things

The disciplinary committee see video footage of an incident - not one snapshot that proves nothing. Where was Walker's elbow just before that shot was taken?

Well seeing as though this snapshot can't be that long after i think its safe to decipher that there is no intent or malice.

Firstly Chevs eyes are shut and the arm and elbow are pointing down not up. To be banned for that after peacock got off with throwing 5-6 punches a week earlier is a disgrace

His charge was "striking - raised forearm whilst carrying the ball"; intent or malice would likely have made it a 4-match ban. He got the minimum 1-match.

I'm not surprised about (GB captain) Peacock, though he was sin-binned. Standing in the game seems to come into it, unfortunately. I see that Ryan Bailey is to be sent a warning letter for "Raised forearm/elbow carrying the ball". He can add that to his collection of warning letters he got last year.

So what is the difference between the two?

Don't know - one plays for Leeds?

How do you know it can't be that long? Only a video replay would tell the whole story, you don't appear to have seen that so your evidence is patchy.

So he commits the offence against us, then is banned for one match, thus weakening the team for their match against our rivals.
Its a good system this.

KR to appeal according to this: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895816.stm It seems unfair that Bailey got a letter, and Walker a ban. Don't tell me that the RFL are being inconsistent....

KR to appeal according to this: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 895816.stm It seems unfair that Bailey got a letter, and Walker a ban. Don't tell me that the RFL are being inconsistent....