Foster does not deserve a ban at all.

I dont like the guilty plea or the ban for elima. One clear thing, the whistle was not blown, so why would the player pull out of a tackle, its play on. The only question is whether it was off the ball/high, but either way, it would never be a ban had there not been the knock on.

If its play on, isnt it correct for elima to be aggressive? we dont expect out players to cuddle in contact do we?

So you can tackle someone off the ball just in case they get the ball? It would certainly make for an interesting spectacle. I'm afraid if Gaskell had the ball it would still have been a penalty - Elima's elbow is straight into Gaskell's jaw - I'm not suggesting it was deliberate, but that is irrelevant as regards the penalty. It is not too dissimilar to an attempted charge down where the kicker has got rid of the ball but is flattened by the defender. If the kicker received the hit to the head that gaskell did then Elima would be looking at a larger ban. I think Gaskell deserves great credit for not milking it, there are a couple of Saints players who would still be laid out.



I think that is almost spot on, though I have come to accept it has to be a penalty, but what would be the outcome if Foster had got to the ball fractionally before Whitehead & had managed to clear the ball before making contact with Whitehad's head?



There is no doubt is was off the ball, it was high. He had plenty of time to pull out.

Agreed.

Gaskell didn't have the ball and Elima's contact with him was late. It makes no difference at all whether the whistle had gone or not.

The RFL banning people after events is becoming a bit of a joke. Elima deserved punishment - it was a late uncalled for tackle, but why didn't Silverwood just put him in the bin? Surely if he'd done that Elima would have got away with any further punishment?

This may have saved us the game however so I can't be too harsh, but there are more and more acts being penalised for a full match / 2 match ban, when, if they did see the event (and gave a penalty) why don't they just bin/send off the player who committed the penalty rather than bottle it and let the next opponents benefit from the ban?

There seems to be more and more "incidents" going unpunished during games and players knowing that if they can unsettle or gain advantage in the game they are playing, the coach can re-group for the next game knowing X player is missing.

Take Elima. If he had been sent off (would have seemed harsh, but to me it wasn't a red, deffo yellow mind), he would be available for the Salford game. Saints would have benefitted from the act and the Bulls would have had to deal with Elima's crime at the time.

Now, we get off scott free in terms of we can have 13 players vs Saints and 13 players against Salford. OK, Elima isn't available v Salford, but it could quite easily have been Sykes, who may have missed out anyway for the returning Sammut.....

Personally I wouldn't mind a few more sinbinnings in games - I know it's a rough game, but there are acts that go unpunished at the time that should allow the recipient of the crime to benefit rather than the offender's next opponents.

Have to agree with Badger, I'd rather see the use of a 10 min binning for minor fouls such as this one. Save the match suspensions for serious incidents. If it had been after a kick from Gaskell he would no doubt have received 10 mins and that would be dealt with. All these hearings/reviews is no doubt a nice little earner for someone though!

I think calling it a joke is extremely unfair. As long as all teams know what the score is viz how offences are dealt with in advance it is a level playing field. Ref's can't win, they bin/red card players & get lambasted on here for trying to hog the limelight, they take the safer route & get the same. Personally I am happy with the current arrangement as long as ref's still have the authority to red if suitable. I am also comfortable if players are binned, especially if it means aggression stays in the game if it is deemed sufficient punishment.

One of the problems with judging Elima's tackle on Gaskell is that the Saints' player had two attempts at picking it up and he he wasn't [ithat[/i late after the second attempt. The fact that Silverwood hadn't blown is important in that [iif[/i Gaskell had picked the ball up at that second attempt he [icould[/i have played on (playing to the whistle) so the tackle was, or at least, would have been if he'd caught the ball, a legitimate one. It may well have been over physical (or however the ref described it) but even Silverwood didn't actually say it was late.

OK - in many ways "joke" is a little unfair, and they are being consitent in not binning anyone....

There are many other instances where the crime doesn't seem to match the punishment given though.

What needs to happen to see a red/yellow these days for overly agressive/dangerous play? Foster received a yellow for mucking around at play of the ball and that warranted 10 mins according to Silverwood, but Elima (at the time) only gave away a penalty for something far more dangerous.

this is pretty much what i was trying to say.

I thought Silverwood's first words were "late tackle" and he then went on to speak about not running in aggressively?

In which case I bow to your superior hearing, but I didn't hear him say that.

I was disappointed in Silverwood in that regard. I thought he called the penalty spot on but then lost a bit of authority by not seeming to clearly explain why he blew in the first place.

They removed the option of yellow for dangerous play a few years ago, reserving just for technical offences IIRC. It might have changed back but I am struggling to remember a recent instance.

Didn't foster see yellow for saints persistent offending?. Foster was just unlucky to be first player penalised after silverwood warned them.

If that was the case it was still pretty minor considering Elima's hit.