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...

Tomkins saw a size 11 at very close quarters.

The Senior one to me, they kind of got the verdict correct, but the punishment wrong.

It's a problem I've noticed for a while now (Burrow is terrible for it) when players thrash about on the floor and swing their legs around. They said about Senior that it was accidental and he didn't intend to kick someone in the head. Well, that's correct, I'm sure he didn't intend on kicking him in the head. But that doesn't take away from the fact that throwing your legs up in the air like that is dangerous. The accident was the contact, it wasn't the flailing.

I've said for a while that someone's gonna get a boot in the face one day and then it happened this weekend. While I appreciate he didn't mean to do it, it's almost like throwing a punch and intending to stop your first right in front of someone's face to scare them. If you accidentally misjudge it and smack them one, while you didn't intend to do it, you shouldn't have been throwing your first there in the first place!

bit like saying the refs should be consistent in their interpretation of rules and we still different interpratations each week depending on individual ref appointed.

Any one on here eating humble pie?
Thought it was only Leeds who got away with suspensions.
Clear case of a one game ban for Sykes if ever there was one and low and behold he gets it rescinded.
Webb gets 2 games appeals and gets to keep the 2 even though he should not have been banned in the first place.
Typical Bradford cheating the system.
Must have Redhall in their pockets.
Cheats.