That, many assume, is why that Halifax thug went straight for Lynchy's head at the start of the previous round tie. He never missed either, so it was absolutely HIS fault that he smacked lynch in the head, deliberate or not.

And yet...that player remained on the field.

Undoubtedly. They shouldn't take into account players' value as then you're entering the grey area of "opinion", but yes that's exactly what I assume is the case.

No doubt Wigan were disadvantaged by Tomkins not being able to continue. Another player had to replace him and finding someone to replace a talent like that is hardly going to be easy. Had Raynor stayed on the field, yes Wigan would have been disadvantaged and it would have been unfair, which is one of the reasons I agreed with the red card.

What I take issue with is the RFL seemingly suggesting that replacing a quality player with a "lesser" player (with no disrespect meant to the sub) is in some way equal to going down to 12 men for the rest of the game. Which it quite clearly isn't.

Not even when the replacement is Worrincy?

Then I don't agree with me either because I have never said that. £100 to you if can show that I did say, an apology from you if you can't? But don't let me stop the hysterical accusations continuing.

It was this I had in my head from earlier. You've also said several times that its not possible for somebody to accidently miss the ball by that amount in a tackle implying that to have landed where he did was intentional.

However having scanned back through the two threads you have also said several times you think he was aiming for the arm. For clarity then do you think he was aiming for the arm and missed or do you think he was aiming for the head intentionally?

And hysterical? Think I've been positively calm compared to most. Hell I've even defended Ganson twice which has left me feeling slightly dirty! Unless you meant you thought they were funny, in which case I'm glad to be keeping you amused.

I didn't say he had a bad record, I was countering the suggestions that he was squeaky clean or had an excellent record. I respectfully suggest you're clutching at straws as what probably did for him most was the very recent headshot he was up for. They couldn't ignore that IMHO.

On the other hand I am finding these "valuable player" arguments increasingly bizarre. There has never been any instance that i know of where the value of the fouled player has been a relevant factor and nor should it be. I'd be of the view that every player deserves equal protection from the judiciary.

Moreover, this line of thinking is completely at odds with what has been the modern approach, which has been to put practically everything on report, so the disciplinary can have a look at it, and leave an even contest. I can see the argument that that advantages future opponents not the "victims", but right or wrong that is (or was) our current system.

Further, if we are going to delve into this sort of stuff, then what about Raynor's actions arguably costing the Bulls their place in the Cup? Doesn't that trump the key man factor, seeing as we lost?

And I still don't believe the VR has the authority to send players off. But as it's Bradford, we seem to make up the rules on the fly.

Think of the advantage to the current opponent as a side effect of penalising the offender and the prevalence of on report makes more sense. It's trying to make sure it penalises the offender correctly rather than advantage the opponents.

I agree that there needs to be consistency, but I'll disagree that future opponents are "advantaged"... they still have to play 17-on-17, whereas we would have been down to 16-on-17 (assuming no-one else was injured and out of the match at that point). Alright you might not have your first choice available through suspension, but unless you've got several other players suspended or injured, you might not even notice their absence, especially against bottom-end teams.

No offence intended on that last remark.