Thanks for clarifying the offence. No argument about the ban from me. Though a cynic (such as Tony Smith?) might say he pleaded guilty to avoid a heavier ban.

Again, no; as it happened Smith was a guest on the Super League Show and frankly admitted that what Bridge did was "a silly thing to do", saying his "adrenaline had kicked in" and he had got himself "over-pumped", and "may have to learn the hard way tomorrow". Smith clearly accepted Bridge's guilt, and fair play to him.

Yes, those pictures are pretty damning, though I'm intrigued by when kicking somebody in the knackers was considered acceptable in our game as well?? (See same pictures, and probably also the frame before the first one aardvark decided to show as evidence.... )

Whilst Bridge is guilty and deserves his punishment, its interesting the initial provocation has received scant coverage on this thread??

I found the "come on then" gesture Bridge made with his right hand just before the attempted elbow smash on a helpless, prone player interesting. It clearly signalled intent.

Can we expect 16 pages now on Jarrod Sammut?

I do think Sammut will be lucky to avoid suspension.

It's hard to defend a player when he done something like that

A one match ban then.

Some key differences:

Sammut did not raise his arm above his own head and bring it down in a smashing action on a player prone on the ground in the manner of a particularly violent drama queen.

Somehow, despite this, the touch judge spotted it and brought it to the attention of the referee.

Let's just pause here for a moment and think about that.

Right, we're back. I think it's fscking incredible that one could be seen and the other not. I'm just as incredulous as you about that. If you saw both incidents before hand you might easily agree that one would be seen and the other not, but you'd have staked your money on completely the wrong incident.

Another difference - there was no contact between Sammut's elbow and the player on the ground.

One similarity - I thought there was intent from Sammut, and I would have no problem with a one match ban.

I thought it was silly play by Sammut but penalty sufficient, on this occasion. It was no worse than what you see most weeks in an average SL game. It was certainly not as bad as the TWO attack to Whitehead's head from Cockayne versus Wakey.

I'd be disappointed, but perhaps not surprised for the disciplinary to view the two incidents of worthy of the same ban.

A thought.

Chris Bridges incident was missed by the officials and thus action taken by the disciplinary panel.

Sammuts was seen, and supposedly sufficient action taken. Does that not mean they have deemed a penalty appropriate, considering it was NOT put on report?

Consistency and logic are often missing from RFL disciplinery decisions. Sammut will either get let off or a 10 game suspension.

Silly play but if Bridge only got 1 game for his then Sammut deserves 20 minutes.

On what basis do you make that statement???...

Neither of them were technically fouls (Both missed their intended targets), but both had the intention of being forearms into the face of an opponent.

If the RFL are consistant, which we know they aren't, then Sammut should get a one game ban.