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.

I think you have got there eventually with that summary. I do feel sympathy for Ganson, it was late, but at full speed & at a different angle not that easy to be sure of, so he did the right thing in letting the game flow &, at the next opportune moment, refer to the VR. He was apparently told there was nothing in it so he had to let it go. The VR is under a bit of time pressure, without the luxury of the review panel, & I am not sure if he has the benefit of all the Sky angles, but it did seem a clear late tackle with hindsight, though I remain unconvinced about the head shot. People make mistakes, Scruton made one but I doubt he will be dropped as a consequence, some made several. There is too much of a clamour for blame & blood these days.

You are Richard Littejohn and I claim my £5 comp-en-say-shun.

Guilty of an illegal high tackle, it's not confusing. They just decided it wasn't bad enough for a ban.

Initial contact with the shoulder, then knocked his block off. As perfected by Sean O'Loughlin & undertaken several times a game. As opposed to knocking said block off without the aperitif.

Did someone from Wigan eat your hamster Tigs? You REALLY do not like them, do you?