Really? You are talking absolute garbage. So it is now the 'team' as a whole deliberately trying to injure players? Have a word with yourself. The video speaks for itself. You cannot show intent in this instance. It looks to 99% of people like a complete accident even if pressure was exerted in an incorrect way. For intent, see Ben Flowers video, who ended someones career and didn't get much more of a ban. It is a ridiculous decision, drummed up by Powell (who I have now lost all respect for) and Shenton (likewise). We will see just how consistent the RFL are following this ruling. They are a complete joke and they know it. The Untouchables.

Oh dear.

Wow. Words fail me.

So they have a generosity of spirit, as well as fertile imaginations - good to know.

The message it sends out is that the panel is suggestible and happy to rely on inference in the absence of evidence.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

The RFL and players/coaches around the league all saw the reckless leg whip. It deserved a ban and HOPEFULLY the RFL stick to the precedent all season long and hand out 1-2 game bans in the absence of injury.

So because he showed remorse he can't plead not guilty. People who have accidents and hurt others, have done it on purpose if they show remorse! You should be a judge (not)!

The point is not his guilt but the length of the ban.

If he had taken the 2 match ban and the day after that it had been announced that the injury had been season ending, would they have upped his ban? Of course not. This *may* now lead to clubs stating that injuries will take longer to heal before the disciplinary comittee meets in order for players to take longer bans. Hopefully most clubs will be above this but the loophole is now there for all to see.

Just one week in and the RFL is already covering itself in glory, how typical of this sport. Welcome back Super League.

I am a little surprised Mr Hudgell has not made a statement.

He had a valid point about 'inconsistency' - for which I believe he was fined - a couple of years ago - rlHERErl

Really? Most people who have commented from other clubs say it was careless at worst. However, I cannot dispute the tackle decision as I am not a professional RFL employee. My argument is that the length of the ban has been influenced by the announcement that it was season ending prior to the hearing. A grade B could have expected 2 matches. If he had received this and THEN the season ending announcement made, the 2 match ban would have stood, so why should the timing of the announcement be allowed to sway the decision?

An example of an injury being overstated influencing a suspension for you all:

Rangi Chase and his cannonball last season. The panel took into account Paul Anderson stating Ferres would be out 10-12 weeks when in reality Ferres was back before Chase was.

I also don't recall people kicking up much of a fuss about injury length being taken into account for that incident, in fact I remember people supporting injury length being used in bans!

Out of morbid curiosity who are these players and coaches?

You, yourself expected a 'cop-out' and no ban iirc, so you perhaps share my fear that yours is a forlorn hope.

I expect to be reading phrases like 'no evidence of intent' with whimsical disgruntlement in the coming weeks.

Anyway, if Daryl Powell can make people see things that aren't there, do we think that means Derren Brown might make a competent RL coach?

Probably because it's pointless and he doesn't want to give Red Hall any more handouts.

Rangi Chase was harshly treated as well IMO but it was far worse then this one. To my mind this one was just a tackle. He clearly didn't aim to injur the player and this whole 'he applied pressure' stuff is crazy. The tackle was done and dusted in a flash. He didn't run miles to come in, Shenton had only just been grabbed a hold off and he completed a perfecto good challenge to help his fellow defenders.

I'll throw my own club under a bus here (probably not wise on here but there you go) by highlighting an incident from a couple of years back which was far worse but didn't get punished. In the GF of 2013 Harrison Hansen came in from behind on Ratchford whilst Mossop was holding him and chopped him down. He travelled a fair distance to get involved and he was a little reckless. His initial contact was just above the knee do it wasn't a shocker but Raychford was in an awkward position and his Grand Final was ended. Did he deserve a ban? I'd still say one or maybe two games at a real push because he could have shown more care but again it was just an unfortunate incident. It was still way way worse then this incident with Boudebza (spelling) at the weekend though. There was another incident in that game also where a man held on the ground got his face smashed to pieces which resulted in a one game friendly ban for Ben Westwood.

As people say, it's the inconsistency which frustrates everyone the most.

Seems harsh compared to other incidents. Though I wouldn't have minded a 1 or 2 game ban (depending on his record) for carelessness as I believe pressure placed on the joints of players should be very strongly punished.

As for Chase, nah deserved everything every game of the ban he got. Whether he meant it or not I don't care. He attacked the leg of Ferres. The game is tough enough without those sh|thouse tactics.

Things that are designed simply to hurt should be harshly punished (chicken wings, cannonballs, standing on hands etc). They're soft, cowardly and should have no place in our game.