Can somebody clarify this for me

Ganson asked for the video refs view as to whether contact was made with the head, can you ask for that feedback to then send somebody off from the video ref? I've never seen that before on TV games and it seemed a bit strange.

You can go to video ref for pretty much anything and because it was related to the try yes you can. He needed to check whether it should have been an 8 point try.

Raynor very clearly intended to hit the ball carrying arm, Tomkins started to go down as Raynor swung, and he ended up hitting his head. If the contact had been with the ball or the carrying arm he would have saved a try. Whereas he could have no imaginable reason to punch Tomkins in the head.

Of course his bloody fist was clenched, he was swinging it to hit the ball/arm, it's not pat-a-bleedin-cake! Why on earth would he try to hit the head, and not the ball/arm? It would make no sense.

The decision to send off was correct, as it was a risky effort, and you pay the consequences for the results of your actions. Say what you want, but for me
a) correct decision
b) no intent, but did make contact with the head
c) a reckless challenge
d) 2 game ban

At first I thought the red card was harsh but seeing the contact made it is probably the correct call however I agree Rayners intentions were probably to dislodge the ball and not attack the head. Unsure as to why no penalty was given after the conversion but that's tomorrows fish and chip paper now.

The yellow was a tad harsh but the amount of penalties given away before that the Wigan discipline needed punnishing and I think that action worked for the rest of the match.

Wigan just about deserved the result but were far far from the form they've shown in the last 5 games, hopefully they'll be on a slump for another 8 days!!!

Not seen it but it sounds like a grubby play. Not something the recipient is at all averse to. Is he okay young Sam, no lasting damage i hope?

Sam seemed ready to come back on if needed and no break it would seem. A quick go on the head test and he'll be lining up unfortunately against HKR next Monday.

Exactly, it was a reckless challenge so a red was justified - I'm shocked it is causing such an outcry.

Just because he wasn't intending to clatter Tomkins in the head doesn't mean he can get away with punishment for a dangerous play.

Do I detect a bit of sarcasm there Saddened.

For me Raynor deserved the red card whether it was intentional or not.

I'd probably agree with that, maybe not a red if the fist isn't clenched. The swinging, clenched fist to the head had to be a red card imo, regardless of intent. In hindisght bloody stupid from Raynor, Bradford were playing well and conceding 6 points wouldn't have been a disaster, with 13 men the result could have been different.

Right decision was made. Terrible incident. As for intent , no-one will know and it does not really matter but Raynor will be punsihed furher and quite rightly so.

was the correct decision. I watched it at first and thought what had happened being in the other end. Watched it back and it is terrible in slow motion, sam running at pace theres going to be some force behind that punch. Can't see how potter can defend it, especially after calling wigan thugs and criticising us over the last 2 years. On another note :- the bradford support. Would be suprised if there was 2000 of them there today and that is being realistic.

For me, Ganson's decision seemed to be based on the reaction of Tomkins alone and with Ganson's tendency for wanting to be the centre of attention at all times, it just seemed too harsh. I'm changing my opinion about this guy, he's loosing it this year.

Tbh I think that him not being sent off they would have done worse. When a player is sent off the rest of the team get pumped up by it (look at Joel vs Hull we went and took the game) its just the way it works in Rugby League.