No. The Rangi Chase tackle v Leeds was neither put on report or missed by the match official yet a Sky-led witch hunt ended up with him receiving a 2-match ban.

He's been charged with a Grade B, he has early guilty plea available

Not sure early guilty plea helps too much. Iirc if you use it then you get the minimum ban covered by sentencing guidelines so scruton would be banned for sts game. Or we contest charge and worst case is he misses next two or best case gets not guilty. Suppose it depends how confident we are that the challenge was ok.

So just so we're all clear, is a late tackle a banning offence in all instances or just if its a Prop forward on a smaller player? The tackle appeared worse because of the weight difference between the players, would we be seeing a similar charge if Scruton had made this tackle on a fellow Prop? I am happy to see serious foul play clamped down on but this is ludicrous in my opinion.

I would fight the charge if it was me but it will be interesting to see what the Bulls decide.

Rubbish.
Because the game didn't stop immediately after the tackle I am not sure how far back the ref/video ref can go back to review an incident. Can a ref send a player off/sin bin more than a tackle after an incident? I have no problem with the situation where the game flows on & all games are reviewed in the cold light of day.

The photos and the DVD show a clear late high hit, but as usual the fans of the team block it out, Ganson & Silverwood got it wrong, another shoulder to the head, what the refs in our game don't seem to be able to police. if it's late it's late, & the ref & his flag wavers should not mis it

It was late. It was foul play. It meant Cas were without a player for the first half. If Scruton had relaxed himself then O'Brien wouldn't have been injured to such an extent. The weight difference is irrelevant for the pending charge, if a direct cause of the injury.

It wasn't a clever tackle from Scrutes.

However, in my view, had the player not been injured or the game been on Sky, Scrutes would not be up in front of Red Hall.

For me an illegal challenge is when a player runs in with a raised elbow, swinging arm or makes deliberate and direct contact with the head or similar. Scruton was late but his first contract was shoulder to shoulder, how can he be responsible for how an attacking players body reacts to that challenge?

I agree though, if he'd made that challenge on a bigger player the tackle wouldn't have even have been mentioned, how can that be right?

So if he'd have jumped straight back up, do you think Scruton would still be up before the panel?

Poor decision, but not surprised as their decisions are always inconsistent. Sidlow was taken out after he passed the ball in the second half, not one mention of that because he played on.

So if the Cas player had been ok, the tackle would have been ok? Interesting.

I'd also be pointing out to the review panel the challenge that took Kearney out on 47 mins after he kicks the ball through. That was a challenge on a halfback where the Cas forward could have pulled out..Kearney needed treatment for that hit.

Cas fans were criticized for backing Chase, when the evidence was not their.

Some Bulls fans still cannot except what the picture shows, he was late & high, the picture was posted and then removed, maybe it was too graphic, the next player to cop a late high shoulder might be a Bulls player, & if he cops it hard enough, he might not get up.

We did, it was Brett Kearney who received an aggressive shoulder from one of your players on 47 mins. He needed treatment but managed to carry on so that was fair game.. Apparently.