Ok, but the comment on the original MOM thread was made in the moment feeling frustrated at losing, having watched the game whilst drinking Stella. My views did change when these factors had worn off!

Fair enough mate. Good luck for the rest of 2013.

Although they are not the brightest of sparks on here, my missionary work has improved its quality substantially.

No it hasn't

It was certainly of a much higher quality before 24 January 2012.

Is that a compliment tigertot

What a load of cobblers from the committee. I think someone above got it right when they said "they had to find him guilty of something to prevent themselves looking stupid" - though maybe I paraphrase a little..

I do feel that but for all the shennanigans over a number of previous offences this nonsense would never have seen the light of day.

The person who is left looking a bit stupid is the video ref. I'd be fuming, if I were him. But in general, as the tackle [iwas[/i fractionally late and as Scruton [icould[/i probably have diminished the impact a bit and as, however it happened, the result [iwas [/ia contact with the head, a small fine is about right.

I suppose a fair summary of what's happened is that the VR and ref though there was "nothing" in it, and this has been upgraded to "there was not much in it".

Possible translation, if you were a cynic: "we wanted to make an issue out of this tackle, with a wider agenda, and it was only Bradford anyway and they lack any clout in the corridors of power. We did not give a stuff about hanging the officials out to dry. But we did not expect Bradford to fight the charge, and have a strong case. So we had to find a way of not losing face, by "downgrading" the charge to a level where the club and player would not think it worth fighting it. And we employ the officials and pay their wages, so tough tìttie if they think we have made them look fools. The main thing is to stop US looking fools".

As I said, a cynic might suppose that. Obviously, I could not possibly comment...

Look fools?

The ref (Ganson) does not think it's a penalty.

The VR thinks there was "nothing in it".

The match review panel thinks its a reckless high challenge Grade B deserving of at least a match ban.

The disciplinary thinks there was not a lot in it, but it was a Grade A challenge deserving of a fine.

All we are missing is a charge of attempted murder, and a Pistorius defence that he thought O'Brien was a burglar.

To add to the above, the Sporting life site alleges they found that "However, the disciplinary panel ruled that the player's first contact with O'Brien was legal". If so, WTF could he possibly be guilty of in the next milliseconds?

And now Ganson gets demoted this week.

At least we know the RFL is so professional that there is never any risk of goats getting scaped.

Now I know you are a paranoid bunch on here, even some Leeds fans think there is a RFL vendetta against them, but none can hold a candle to the pathetic inbred Mash Butty on the Whining Wigan site. He starts a thread titled Westwood Wont Get Banned (because the RFL only hate Wigan) which has infinitely more interest (obsession) from the whiners than their teams performance at Hudds.