Elima has entered an early guilty plea on his dangerous on his grade B dangerous tackle charge.

I saw it live and I've seen them let go in the past, I think he had time to pull out but I don't think the whistle was blown before he connected so technically it was play on (I may be wrong on this). On a whole Elima was a little pumped up for his first game back and it will be sad to lose him again so quickly.

It wasn't nice, but was it a penalty or even worth a ban?

No problems at all with it myself. Also pleading 'guilty' spikes the guns a bit of those claiming he did nothing wrong! I did think it was more a case of being too pumped up than out-and-out malicious, and 1 game seems about right.

No problem with it personally. Bit naughty but we seem to keen on sanitising our game at the moment. For me that's why players are entering 'guilty' please - they know they'll be made an example of and might as well plead guilty for a lesser punishment.

You want to see a truly bad tackle that WILL result in a hefty ban?

Search for '[sizeTony Williams 360[/size'.

Had roles been reversed, Bulls would have been screaming for a ban.

I think the Earthpig sums it up quite neatly.

What we HAVE to see is some consistency. We'll be watching like hawks to make sure the same rules are applied when one of ours is clattered in like fashion.

Of course he deserves a ban. He will acknowledge it was out of order. It was a strike to the head of a prone player and he knew play was dead, whether the ref had blown or not.

It was a nasty, malicious cheap shot. He was wound up because of his ongoing spat with Jon Wilkin at the time and saw an opportunity to lash out. The Sky cameras caught it well, Gaskell had dropped the ball and was on his knees and he took three or four steps to build up momentum.

It was a reckless challenge and probably ought to result in a ban. I like Elima but he does have something of the 'Brent Webb' about him.

Had one of Tomkins/Bailey/Ablett done this there would already be a 10-page thread on it.

What worries me slightly more is the way the disciplinary system is now set up to encourage players to plead guilty even where they may believe they have a good case to go the disciplinary and argue against any ban at all.

Can you imagine a player coming up on a Grade B charge two weeks before the Cup final taking a risk and going to the tribunal? They'll plead guilty and take the one match ban, which will then count against them if they are referred again in future.

I don't think we want to lose that aspect of the sport (the hard contacts) and personally I think this was one of those challenges that was just that second too late for it to be confused as a late challenge.

Also Elima does have a bit of a record for this, does anyone remember the shoulder/elbow on Lomax a few years back? I imagine that's why he's put in the early plea.

Not sure about a ban, should have been sin-binned, which could have cost Bradford the game, found it strange all the Bradford fans cheering him when he got subbed after that and trying to start a fight, his poor discipline could have cost them the game.

It should have been dealt with at the time, with him doing either 10mns in the bin, or sending off. I know this might have swung it Sts way but how does it benefit the aggrieved team if he now gets a ban??

It was a malicious hit on a player who had already dropped the ball and was on his knees, virtually powerless to defend himself.

Elima had been involved in an ongoing niggle-fest with Wilkin, so he was clearly wound up and decided to take it out on Gaskell; a nasty incident from a player with previous - a well-deserved ban.

I don't recall Gaskell be on his knees, he had doubled over bit to 'chase' the ball, but I don't remember him being on his knees.

Definitely late, but we're hardly talking a long time, would have been a strong, clean hit had gaskell had the ball (and not doubled over) as it was it ended a bit nastily. A one game ban more than sufficient - although I would have said a penalty would have been sufficient.

No malicious intent - just a no nonsense prop making a strong tackle.

One game ban. Fair enough.