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 - [url=http://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12217/9232902/super-league-hull-kr-chairman-neil-hudgell-slams-rfls-disciplinary-panelHERE[/url

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!

The vital difference is that Rangi's tackle was so blatent he had nowhere to hide. This tackle was nowhere near as bad (or at least blatent) so would have only received a 2 match ban maximum until the injury announcement.

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.