Bradford Bulls winger Gareth Raynor was tonight suspended for two games and fined £300.00 by the RFL's Disciplinary Committee meeting in Leeds.
Raynor pleaded guilty to making contact with the head of an opponent during Sunday's Carnegie Challenge Cup fifth round tie against Wigan Warriors at Grattan Stadium Odsal.
Raynor was charged by the RFL Match Review Panel following his dismissal for the 31st-minute tackle on Wigan full-back Sam Tomkins.
Bradford Bulls will consider whether to appeal against the severity of the sentence and will inform the RFL of their decision tomorrow morning.

What a joke, Bulls better appeal!

Why is it a joke? Did he not make contact with his head? He pleaded guilty. We've had players banned for longer,for less. Get over it.

Harsh. It was category B (Reckless – tried to tackle but reckless about outcome ) - 1-2 matches and he had already missed 50 minutes of a match. He pleaded guilty which usually counts slightly in your favour and he had an excellent on-field disciplinary record since he started playing which usually counts heavily in your favour.

The main aggravating factors which could apply are violence which is usually butting, kicking, vicious attacks or with intent. If they have given him 2 matches then the panel must have believed there was intent which would cancel out his good record.

An appeal would put him before a different panel tomorrow. I think on appeal he would be downgraded to 1 match. It is worth an appeal.

Out of interest today's panel was L Hull, I Butt & J Hamer. Tomorrow's panel is P Charlesworth, G Hallas & N McAvoy - according to the rfl rota.

i would say his punishment of missing 50 minutes and 300 pound fine is a fair assessment.

You can't argue with the red card, and a 1 match ban would sound about right; particularly as Raynor decided to plead guilty despite clearly disagreeing with being sent off at the time. But we've seen worse receive no ban (Keith Senior, Lee Smith, Leon Pryce, Keiron Cunningham on various occasions, for example) and we've seen less serious offences receive longer bans.

Consistency is still the major problem.

NATHAN McAvoy?

No conflict of interest there, then.

Graham Hallas has no bradford ties either eh ?

So in effect a 3 match ban. For an accidental tackle. What a joke.

When you see all those deliberate head shots get let off game in game out. Crazy.

Hope we do appeal. I would expect to see this reduced.

Would have been SOS had it not been on TV. And most RL hacks I have seen reporting on the match thought the sending off was actually harsh anyway (see e.g. yesterday's LE, not normally known for its pro-Bulls stance) although I suspect the Pies would have gone totally apoplectic (OK, even more so) had he not walked.

Sick and bloody tired of the inconsistency. Some other clubs seem to suffer from it too, and some players from other clubs seem to get away with murder. Rarely though do the decisions seem to go in our favour. So strange, that.

I can see why he has been given the ban and I'm in no way surprised, mainly because he's wearing a Bulls shirt.

The thing I do struggle with is the inconsistency of all similar disciplinary issues.

It does seem to be one rule for one and one rule for another.

It was. I hoped the winking smiley would indicate that.





Not just "pies". My better half is a Bradford fan, and she said at the time that it would be a disgrace if he stayed on the pitch. He HAD to go, there was no question. No-one can say it's debatable without people seriously questioning their sanity. Which is a shame, because until I read his comments, I actually quite liked Mick Potter, even when he was Stains' coach.

Staying on the subject of consistency, I thought the first tackle by Halifax in your previous Challenge Cup match should have received a red card too.

Whilst I don't think Raynor SHOULD appeal, I do suspect he might get a match shaved off if he does.

I think the 2 game ban is harsh, he was out of most of the game and has been fined thats sufficient punishment.

Given that Raynor received the maximum amount of games for that offence, do we have anything to lose by appealing? I take it the panel can't add on more matches when they've already handed out the maximum for that offence?

Why not?

The RFL establishment seem to make up new rules on a regular basis if it disadvantages Bradford?