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.

You mean like you did when it was Chase?

Sounds like we aren't taking early guilty plea. Scruton just tweeted about getting to fight his case tomorrow.

It isn't "rubbish", it's my opinion, you mardy twot.

You may indeed be unsure, but my statement was based on the fact that I heard Ganson tell the Cas players that they'd had a look at it, and there was nothing in it. He could, I grant, have been lying to them, but I don't think so.

I have no problem with anything being reviewed in the cold light of day either, but if a top referee acting as VR says there was nothing in it, then a decision to the contrary makes him look an idiot and completely undermines him.

What a ref and a VR can/can't do is, on the QT, a purely academic question, we learned at MM that they tell each other whatever they want whenever they want to, and that clearly hasn't changed (which situation, for the avoidance of doubt, I would be perfectly happy with, in the case of things they have genuinely seen and the officials have missed).

If you watch the replay the only contact with the head is when O'Brien is hit on the shoulder and his head goes forward into the shoulder of Scruton

Good on him, I think it's the right decision. Whether the panel come up with the right decision is another question entirely.

The charge has nothing to do with the fact the tackle was late (though it wont help Scruton's cause), it is "striking with his shoulder to the head Castleford half-back Gareth O'Brien". The panel have watched the replays and come the the conclusion that contact was made with Scruton's shoulder on O'Brien's head.

do the panel who decide who comes up before them, actually hear each case that week?
I was under impression it was independent and changed week by week?

Interesting how all the noble Bulls fans are now deliberately misinterpreting posts to try & deflect attention from their earlier assertions that a fairly obvious late tackle was fair. The tackle I thought was deliberately late, therefore it was foul play, irrespective of if it was high or not (which I didn't think it was). There's bound to be a reflection in the panel decision based on the severity of the injury caused by an illegal tackle.
For me the interesting outcome is that Scruton will now probably be banned, whereas if it had been called at the time I think he would only have got (& deserved) a yellow. I interpreted it as the same as a late tackle on a kicker which I think is automatic yellow.

Edit - if what I am reading belatedly above then it wasn't late just high, which I disagree with.

It is rubbish, just my opinion you understand, when you state Scruton cannot be disciplined as there have been numerous incidents where players have been called up after the game.