Isn't there a technical difference between bans that run for X months and those that run for X matches, in that being banned for so many matches means you can continue to train etc, but being banned for 6 months means you cannot participate in your role at the club at all. I could have got that wrong though.

RFL should sue him for that comment.

He misses 13 games. 2 friendlies, the WCC vs Brisbane, and 10 SL fixtures.

The RFL say 6 months because this is the most exposed to the media league has been that I can remember, so to all those now suddenly big RL reporters it will sound a very harsh ban which they can happily report on.

On the face of it I think the RFL have done well here. I think it's a fair ban and it will keep the media happy with the way they have worded it.

Hopefully now everyone can just put it behind them and get on with the game.

Have to say that's a very humbling statement from our arch nemesis.

Maybe he's been reading Oscar Wilde. It has been dealt with correctly and one high-profile individual implosion should not tarnish rugby league's proud reputation as a family sport."

St Helens chairman Eamonn McManus said: "The sport of rugby league should not be judged by this event, but by how it deals with it.
"We must assist (Flower) in any way that we can and accept him back into the sport. There is a person behind the player, and I am reliably informed by all that it is a good one."

So lets all calm the **** down and move on.

Said 12 myself so 11 is fair enough.

Time to move on, 6 month ban and having to live with the shame of it all whilst knowing he cost his side a SL title is enough punishment for the guy.

Actually, they showed more bottle, by making their own decision rather than pandering to the baying mob. Whether you agree with the decision or not (I think it's a bit too short as it happens), 'bottle' isn't the issue here. It would have been *far* easier to say "12 months" - media would have liked it and TBH, given the situation, Wigan wouldn't have dared to question it either for risk to their own reputation. So their decision might be wrong, but it doesn't lack 'bottle'.

I can almost sense the overwhelming feeling of frustration and disappointment among t whinos fans because Albert Pierrepoint hasn't been summoned to rise from the dead for one last gig.

I think it's better that the ban is in months rather than games as friendly games count towards these sorts of bans.

But that's a completely separate issue

The ban is fair in my opinion. Hopefully will stop any silly talk of police action now.

6 months seems about right to me, maybe a bit short considering it's the off season.

Full respect to St Helens and Lance Hohaia too. They've dealt with this in the best possible way. Hopefully Lance isn't too shook up by the incident and can continue as normal next season.

This has been handled very well by the RFL, Saints and Wigan. For one incident we have had some very sensible behaviour and I think 11 matches, with 10 of them out of 27 SL games (over a third of the season) is actually a big ban.

It also means he cannot transgress in a violent manner again as he has a great big black mark on his head from this at Red Hall. and as someone else said, all those "experts" such as Lineker, Owen, and journos who have no interest in the sport have seen it dealt with tremendously well. Look at how Liverpool and Uruguay defended the indefensible Suarez and how long those incidents took to deal with and how, even today, Suarez is still bitching about being wronged. Both clubs fully supported the RFL and I imagine Flower will never come out and said he was hard done by. This is a great example of the sport being run well, how often can we say that?

Agreed. Impressed with the RFL for a change. They turned would was a dark incident into an advertisement as to how sport should be run.