You are driving your car at 35 in a 30 and not paying much attention. Nothing happens, no-one notices. You go free.

You are driving your car at 35 in a 30 and not paying much attention. . You get clocked. 3 points and a fine.

You are driving your car at 30 in a 30 and not paying much attention. A child dashes out and you hit it. You would have seen it and braked or swerved if paying attention. It dies. You are charged with causing death by careless driving. You go to jail.

Do your differences in luck deserve different treatment? Should every careless driver go to jail because but for their good luck they never actually killed someone?

In your example the player took the RISK of causing injury. It is fair enough therefore to take such injury into account, if it results.

IMHO what it amounts to is answering for the consequences of what you did. Because you took the known RISK of something bad happening, and knew there would be a serious consequence if something bad did happen. It may be just your good luck if in any given scenario nothing especially bad does happen, but the way this element of "luck" is factored in is, I think, both normal, sensible, understandable and the fairest alternative for all concerned.

If the Gobe had said anything prior to the Leigh game he might have some credibility. To turn around after a very close game and claim the outcome might have been different had Zak been suspended is crass. He might be right, we could have put BJB at full-back and he might have scored a hat-trick and we could have won comfortably. We'll never know. The fact that he uses the club website to air his BS speaks volumes about him. Hasn't he got any ambulances to chase?

I'm no fan of Hudgell, but when he's writing in general terms about the disciplinary AFTER his own appeal against a personal charge, on the website of the club he owns, he has every right to comment on other related issues. No one forced you to read it but you did and you don't agree. Fine.

And calling someone "the gobe" because you don't agree speaks volumes about you too tbh.

Agree entirely with FA.

If "similar" incidents have to receive the same punishments then every high tackle has to be punished in exactly the same way, regardless of danger or severity.

Also Hardaker wasn't charged with the same offence as Weyman. It was a much more serious charge and was an exceptional case. I don't see why it should be dealt with in the same time frame.

He mentioned the Hardaker incident to highlight the completely outrageous decision to ban Weyman for swearing at a team mate, yet Hardaker can apparently be seen to mouth the words he allegedly said to the ref, and was not banned. He used the local press and radio to air his views....hence the fine. If you are gonna call the guy a gobe and have a go about his BS, get your facts right otherwise you will tend to come across as a gobe too.

The guy puts a lot f money into the game, he has a right to his opinion IMO.

What I don't agree with is critiscing refs in the media. They are an easy target for poor performing coaches and clubs.

Imagine if refs started coming out and saying "well they lost due to the poor performance of number 7 and in all honesty the team are not up to this level of the game and should be looking for a new coach"

It could be a valid observation none the less...

IMHO they should go like soccer. Why, they have their World Cup on right now, and I can guarantee you'd never see players, fans or coaches publicly having a go at the referee.

Did you not see the match or watch/read the interviews with the Croatian players/coach afterwards?

I tried, but was distracted by the biggest and loudest WHOOOOOSHHHH noise in the history of whooshes.

Well I had to check because I've read what you've put in the past and a lot of it has been rather laughable

Always aim to amuse!

Come on people, that was the most blatant bit of sarcasm ever.

Could earn me a Nobel prize, I reckon I may have discovered something even neutrinos cannot penetrate