Both principals are the same.

no, they really aren't. I think I'll leave it here as you have conflated it with something much more extteme and personal to you.

Well i won't leave it here. I used my brother as an example. The point is, In both cases no one sets out to kill anyone,but it's possible that someone is killed with both actions.

Just because there was a really bad decision by the disciplinary previously does not mean that sets a precedence for more bad decision making in terms of protecting players from violent conduct and not making it absolutely clear that that kind of offence means the offender is going to be punished in line with the 'crime'.
Personally I think Flower should have had a 12 month ban, the 10 games that it totalled was laughable and made a mockery of the seriousness of the incident.

A reduced sentence and a bunch of flowers for Watts sufficed.

So it was downgraded to a Grade E tackle....grabbing a players balls and twisting them !!! What did Bradford's George Flanagan do last season then to get an 8 game ban, try to tear them off ??

So you get a grade F. Plead guilty to the grade F and therefore get it downgraded to E. I would really like someone to explain that to me!

you mean the odious and notorious house Sam tomkins? Yeah I wonder why that would be.

Yes they really are. I’m with cokey on this. As someone else who has lost someone to an “extra punch” that doesn’t really matter in your eyes.

Besides keeping quiet whilst his brother abused a bar tender?


Good job it wasn’t the woman beating Gelling eh?

That's is correct, it was a GBH with intent, and therefore had the player on the ground die, it would be murder. Punching someone in a fight and causing death is manslaughter, punching someone already on unconscious is intent to do GBH and therefore under the virtual certainty test, murder, had he died.

Re Makinson, it's all a load of .

What do those incidents have anything to do with Makinson’s lust for testes?

I think this has drifted far enough.