I've said all I need to say about the actual incident. The ban itself is clearly warped by three things (In that order).
1) The embarassment of the appeal last year. They've treated Saints differently to other clubs all year and this is another clear and obvious inconsistency with other decisions in the same match and others this weekend
2) The injury and Paul Cullen's relationship to Cooper. Typical RFL awkwardness allowing Cullen to be in that position. But the injury is the main drive for the charge. Without the injury, there is no charge for the incident. They have set a precedent now though that injuries are a factor in disciplinary outcomes.
3) His record. 44 citings in 5 years, not 2 years or even 18 months as people are making out. It's not that horrendous a record and if you remove the not-guilties and the silly (But clearly not dangerous) late hits, he's on about 5 charges in 5 years, one of which was the farcical holding the Salford player's arm behind his back last season. A monster he is not, far more reckless and cynical players in the league and in the teams involved in the derby.
Whatever your take on the incident is, I think we can all agree that giving Knowles the same ban as Dudson, who punched a grounded and indefensible player in his head/throat is simply wrong. Consistency and common sense with these decisions is something we'll never see until we get some competent people into the panel and the RFL in general.
I’m getting concerned for Saddened now this is a really testing time for him
Quote: matt_wire "Did notice McIlorum and Romano got away with some things on Saturday, so pleased to see the Cullen Crew are still keeping an eye out for such things!'"
Only 1 player will serve a ban rest will use the reserve fixture loophole. That should have been stopped after last season’s uproar.
Quote: karetaker "Only 1 player will serve a ban rest will use the reserve fixture loophole. That should have been stopped after last season’s uproar.'"
Stupid rule, we’ve benefited from it in the past, but it needs removing from the game.
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.