After isn't the same as during, and during isn't the same as the incident. You can only do this stuff by moving images, not stills.

why exactly? I've seen the Bailey incident and Bailey did not deliberately raise his arm and lead into the challenge. With the difference in height and running style and position of ball under his arm there was no malice. But yet again as its Bailey you all start blowing.

As for chev



to me that would suggest he deliberately raised his forearm. i really wish people would take off their rose tinted glasses, it gets ever so tiring

As the people above have already said one frame doesn't tell the whole story. This is obviously taken a fraction of a second after the incident. In my opinion he went into the tackle with the intent of raising the elbow. This could have easily resulted in a broken jaw.

Is that someone with sense? I would hazard a guess that about 70% of the people commenting on the Bailey incidnet haven't seen it. But as soon as some of you see Ryan Bailey- raised forearm, that's it he must be quilty.

But hey let's not allow reasoning to get in the way of a good argument eh?

How would you want the system to be like then?

I've no idea really. Just moaning.

How about the team against who the offence was committed gets to choose which games the offendee misses? How would that work?

Match ban to be served next time teams meet?

It is strange that an incident that occurs against a team does not benefit said team when punishment is given out.

I thought that too. But what about 3, 4 match bans? That could last for several seasons.
I've always had a major gripe though with bans given while playing for the international side been served when playing for the club side.

I think the idea is to punish the offender not reward those offended against. Therefore, in theory, the match that the player misses could be a cup final. (Yes I know that we are unlikely to see this RFL ban a player from any important match but I did say theory).