thats just complete nonsense. He was all het up about the decision and his comments were about that. He even went on to justify his comments by saying that Lynch had a right to turn and run in the direction of the ball, so he was clearly talking about that incident. Diskin was wrong about the incident, and wrong to say what he did. As fans we can say it and the ref was pretty poor with a multitude of errors going in the favour of both sides.

Led with the forearms right into Herbert's mush. Late, high should have got 10.

Yep, that's about spot on.

Oh ok then.

If that happened he'll get a ban and rightly so.

Amen.

only it didnt.

Wilkin hit him about a nano-second after he had kicked the ball and was commited. The hit itself was also legal.

Committed? To what? Wilkin didn't attempt to charge down the ball, didn't attempt to effect a tackle. He hit him late and led with his forearms around the shoulders and chin.

he charged the kicker and was fully commited. There was nothing wrong with what he did provided he didnt forearm him in the face, which he didnt do. It was no worse than What Hoffman did to Gary Wheeler which had all the Saints fans up in arms but when looked at in the cold
light of day ny the disciplinary panel they found nothing wrong with it. You can do that. Its only a late illegal hit if you hit the guy, after the ball has gone when you knew the ball had gone and could have pulled out of the hit. Wilkin couldnt have done that.

Don't worry. Wilkin was aiming for the ball. Everything else is irrelevant for your average impartial Bulls fan, even if he had caught him on the jaw.

Yet he missed the ball by a country mile and elbowed him in the face. So lets see....reckless tackle...2 match ban?

That isn't true though is it?
Players aren't stupid and they adapt behaviour when necessary to gain the most benefit. ConsiderIF[/i the ref does give a knock on, this shows that the practice works and will only result in it being repeated.
Scenario 2: Player puts hand in and the ref gives a penalty. This gives the direct opposite outcome to what the transgressor was hoping for, thereby showing that the idea of putting the hand in isn't a good idea so it is less likely to be repeated.

So the likely outcome would more probably been that the penalties would have nipped the 'hands in' in the bud, rather than every set would have had a penalty.

You forgot to take off the "Saints Reduction Factor" when calculating the ban.

Standard suspension / Saints Reduction Factor = Actual ban for Saints player.

Therefore (2 / 3) = 0.666

0.666 < 1 therefore actual ban equals "less than 1 match".

Therefore ZERO.

If he got him in the mush it's >2 matches, although I'd give him 8 for being a sh it. Though it will be a joke & a disgrace & all the review panels bias. One rule for Saints, one for the rest.