Must be 9 months at least.

He stopped Paleasena all by him self a couple of seasons back when we played Wigan at Odsal

Quote: Adeybull "Club is not appealing.'" www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2730 Looking at the contradictory edvidence the committee make, its that because Tomkins did not return it negates Raynors sending off (there was no need for him to return and he did not look concussed at the end of the match like Pie coach Mcguire the Liar insinuated!, fair enough then because of his recent record (The player has played 228 First Class games without ever being sent off. Does not have a reputation as a dirty player.) bans him for 2 matchs plus a fine. Raynor pleads guily to a careless tackle but the pillocks in the committee still say it was reckless! As far as the Club not appealing, I get the feeling there is politics again lurking in the background on this as usual with Sod Hall and its dealing with the Bulls!

Quote: Adeybull "Club is not appealing.'" www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2730 Looking at the contradictory edvidence the committee make, its that because Tomkins did not return it negates Raynors sending off (there was no need for him to return and he did not look concussed at the end of the match like Pie coach Mcguire the Liar insinuated!, fair enough then because of his recent record (The player has played 228 First Class games without ever being sent off. Does not have a reputation as a dirty player.) bans him for 2 matchs plus a fine. Raynor pleads guily to a careless tackle but the pillocks in the committee still say it was reckless! As far as the Club not appealing, I get the feeling there is politics again lurking in the background on this as usual with Sod Hall and its dealing with the Bulls!

The argument that Tomkins did not return therefore negating the sending-off is bollox. The Pies had 13 men on the field, we had 12. That comment alone smacked of something strange to me.

Pretty well every objective observer I have seen has said (and that includes the RL hacks) that they felt the punishment was harsh.

As do I.

I have long believed things are not all they seem in the corridors of Rot Hall, and this episode has done nothing to change my belief.

I agree, and looking back of course it was Brent Webb who hit Ollie after he had scored and with enough time to pull out of his attempt to dislodge the ball/hit Ollies face, so no justification whatsoever for contact, whereas Raynor hit him before the grounding. one rule for Bradford, one for the rest.

What recent record does Raynor have other than a criminal one? I can't understand what record the commitee are refering to?

I am absolutely gob smacked that Raynor has been handed a further 2 game ban

As a neutral watching the game i thought that Raynor purely intended to dislodge the ball from Tomkin's hands, thus stopping him from scoring

I would have thought that Raynor had suffered enough punishment in being sent off and fined personally, but then again it was against the unpunishable Warriors was it not?

If it had been a front on tackle & Raynor, or whoever, had swung to hit across the chest, missed completely & knocked the attacker spark out, would 2 games be too much? He could equally claim he was trying to dislodge the ball.

TBH I can understand the ref decision to send raynor off, but would have thought sending off suficient can't understand a 2 game ban, and no appeal?!

But it wasn't. So it can't be judged as so. It can only be judged on what it was.

Or are you seriously suggesting that all tackles should be treated excatly the same - high tackle - 3 game ban - no need to consider the evidence?

Unpunishable Warriors?

Apart from that red card, Ganson HAMMERED us with penalties, and handovers when we should have had penalties, and make no mistake we've had our share of harsh bans.

As I've said previously, compare this incident with ones by Cunningham, Senior, Bailey, Leon Pryce... yes, in comparison the 2 match ban is harsh, but had it been a Wiganer committing the offence we'd have got the same punishment.

Now St Helens, on the other hand, can break the salary cap more times than any other team, yet not even get punished every time. Wigan and Bradford? Fines all round.

Break a player's eye socket by punching him in the face? Fine if you're Cunningham, not so good if you're Newton.

Like I said, I'm glad Raynor pleaded guilty, I expected him not to the way he shook his head when receiving the card. The red card was deserved, one match ban maybe, two matches a little harsh, but we should be used to this by now, right?

And Bradford's cap breach - and we only did one thing to "breach the cap" despite getting done for TWO years because we could not remedy year two by the time Rot hall had got round to determining year one - was because Harris' image rights (paid by an independent third party) were deemed to be part of his package. Yet e.g. Sculthorpe's, ditto, were not.

I agree totally with Fishta in that this thread should not in any way become a Wigan-knocking thread. Not that it should be a Saints-knocking one either - the real target lies elsewhere.

There are plenty of examples of why I would love to have been a fly on the wall at Rot Hall.

Don't even get me started on the "Spirit of the Cap" thing. 8.6962890625:10