If you have to ask then there's really no point going over all this again.

50/50 whether he gets a ban, with our current injuries he would be yet another massive blow.

I think he will get a ban, and we could not really complain. If it's more than one week though, I think we could.

Obviously it will be viewed as bias but I really didn't see much in it. It was foul play that was rightly punished there and then. But worth a 1 game ban? Not IMO.

I am asking......Both were intent over actual damage, both had similar intent.....So what's the difference?

or on the wind. Either way don't be such a TW[size=150^[/sizeT
=#FFFFFF---------------------------------------------------------/=#FFFFFF----\
=#FFFFFF-------------------------------------------------------/=#FFFFFF--------\
=#FFFFFF-----------------------------------------------------/iiiiiiiiiiiiiii\
=#FFFFFF---------------------------------------------------/=#FFFFFF----------------\

No difference at all lads.....Just take your blinkers off.

Well first of all Sammut actually made minimal contact with Hall, the forearm glances of the top of his head. Secondly in the Bridge incident, he was the sole defender so was very much in control of his own actions and deliberately dropped on Jeffries using a almost wrestling type move. In the Sammut incident there are 2 other defenders in attendance who pull Hall backwards. Hall at this point actually has hold of Sammut by his shirt neck and in effect pulls Sammut over the top of him.

It was a foul by Sammut which was rightly penalised. He'll be desperately unlucky to get a ban though and a lot worse has gone unpunished in games I have seen so far this year.

I'd agree that Sammut is a lot cleverer than Bridge, in that he uses the shield of it being a multiple tackle to carry out his foul - Bridge had nowhere to hide and was a lot more obvious.

However, there can be little doubt, that the intent of both 'tackles' was the same, and that was to injure an opponent illegally.

I think it is less conclusive of the 'intent' by Sammut given the circumstances I highlighted. The lack of contact also sets the incidents apart. Both fouls, but hardly comparable and certainly not deserving of the same punishment in my opinion.

Sorry to disagree but I think it will be adjudged as similar offence as Bridge and that we will have to do without Sammutt next week. Hope I'm wrong

On watching again this morning I was wrong about that. There was contact. Still not worth more than one week though.

My view on the incident. Sammut deliberately hit his forearm/elbow in Hall's face. 1 game ban.

All the Bulls have to do is plead guilty, Sammut doesn't have a hearing and he gets his ban reduced so that will be 0 games. It's the new hearing system Tony Smith was raving about last week, which IMO stinks.

The Sammut incident is 1 game ban, no more no less, but he can just plead guilty and he should get it reduced like Bridge did last week.