Probably nothing, but why not McNamara??

conflict of interest maybe as he works for RFL as well as bulls?

Terrible tackle that deserved a ban. But it was not deliberate, it is out of character, & I have no problem with the ban being overturned. I hope some of the childish muppets on here are enjoying more humble pie for breakfast.

Someone at the club told me it was because he'd already agreed it in advance with the RFL.

I wasn't trying to imply that btw.

Good news, lets hope we can stuff them on Sunday

Easy. We just sat there and sykesd them out

One thing I don't get (and apologies if this has already been mentioned).

The incident got referred to the panel, who presumably watched the video and decided it was worth a ban (I've not seen it on the telly myself and don't remember it at the game, so couldn't comment on how bad it is or anything).

After that, the club/player appealed, and the findings of the appeal cleared Sykes of any wrongdoing. Presumably they're watching the same footage? If so, how the hell does one viewing ban him for a match and the other viewing clear him of any wrongdoing?

Do they have two seperate video watching panels, one of which has the benefit of sight and the other of which is full of people from the local blind institute?

As I say, I honestly don't know which of the findings was correct, as I haven't seen the tackle, but either way, how do two of them see something entirely different?

You can only assume the same way a panel of senior beaks can overturn the ruling of a lower beak? And the way a panel of even more senior beaks sat on fancy red benches and with a fancy ermine-trimmed robe can in turn overturn THEIR ruling? In other words, you have more experienced bodies sat on thge appeals panel? If not, then it beats the hell out of me!

The second video was Sykes skipping through meadows full of flowers and playing with puppies and balloons. They saw he's blatantly a nice guy

You really have a thing about Keith don't you?

Ah, well, you see, they don't just sit and watch a video. The difference, as ever, is made by the fine and convincing words of the advocates on either side. They make sense of the flickering images on the screen for the panel, and as a result, justice is done.

And there is nothing wrong with, or in the least unusual, about different panels, or even different individuals, taking different views of the same incident. Like, er, everyone on here, who all equally "watched the same thing".

Was a case last week in the Supreme Court - which lost - but it was a mjority decision and the Master of the Rolls (top judge) voted the other way. That's just how it works. (Though I'd be sick as two pigs if I lost a case where the Master of the Rolls reckoned I had won).

While I appreciate different people will have different opinions of things, surely a disciplinary panel should be all singing from the same hymn sheet, so to speak. Certain guidelines will no doubt have to be followed. While there will still be a "margin for error", they shouldn't be so different that one bans someone and another says he didn't do anything wrong. That's not just seeing things a little different, that's the complete opposite.

Perhaps I need to see the incident again to appreciate why it can be interpreted so differently, but I would have hoped that a disciplinary panel would have guidelines to try and eliminate "opinion" as much as possible.

...well he would say that, wouldn't he...?

Except...us, Pies and Whinos watched the Senior "Oi! You could take someone's eye out with that!" incident, and everyone saw something different.

The 'Vark's fine and convincing words eloquently make the case for the defence...