I've just been down too see "the boss" my 89 year old mother. I thought her comments probably summed up the Sam Tomkins incident better than any other.

"I hope his mam & dad have a word with him"

If Sam Tomkins is disciplined and punished by the rfl.I wonder if his will fine him too?

i would hope he plays against us on sunday but then again i think he deserves a ban for what he did.aside from being a great talent he is also a cheating,antagonising little turd who would not get the stick he does if he played the game in the spirit it should be played,opposing fans can see what his game is so lets hope the rfl do,i wouldn't hold my breath though.

No chance should Sam be banned, slap on the wrist and a few hundred quid fine should do.

I would be suprised if Lima gets away without a ban for his spear tackle, especially with his previous. Third(?) ban of the season for tackling technique related incidents should see quite a hefty ban levied if the RFL disciplinary committee want to be taken seriously (expect a caution and a warning letter about future conduct then).

I watched the Sky recording of the final and Barrie Mac (a Leeds employee) was commentating. he said that there was nothing wrong in that tackle.

Let's see what the RFL disciplinary have to say when they review game, including Baileys late tackle after the hooter on half time.

There is no doubt that Lima lifts Delaney's legs way past the horizontal and then "drives" (although "drives" in this instance is more than a little over dramatic) him down. He doesn't correct the position of Delaney's body and carry him down which he should have done if it had been an error.

Is that the best you can come up with on Bailey? Little Sam wasn't tackled at the time and was there to be hit. If you want the disciplinary to do Bailey for that "post-hooter" action I'll expect you to be demanding the death penalty for Tommy as a result of his "post hooter" tackle at full-time.

He has apologised:

[urlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/11/08/29/RUGBYL_Wigan.html&BID=480[/url

Fair enough. Raises one question though - when he said 'he said he didn't know anything about it' when asked about it on Saturday what did he mean?

There are a lot of people who don't like Sam, there are many reasons why but it all results in people disliking him.

What he did was wrong, he stuck the Vs up toward the Leeds fans right infront of a camera. Live on BBC One, to a lot of people. Some people will be deeply offended by that. The majority of us on here enjoy a good beer and nothing more than the occasional abusive chant from the stands, but there are many people out there, watching our game at the highest level on a national channel, that don't and could have been offended by that.

People keep bringing up past moments, the most common one being the Lee Briers v Leeds in 2006. But, the RFL shouldn't even consider that. They should take every case as something brand new. Forget about who the player is, what team they play for, just look at their previous history with the Commitee and the offense they are currently there for and punish according to the rules and guidelines.

As a Warrington fan, I'm in two minds about him being banned. I'd love him to play, but would also love a go at the Wigan team without their "goldenboy".

He appologised, that's fair enough. But that was forced by Wigan. That's obvious with the fact that he was fined and punished by his own club before publicly appologising.

The RFL will probably get a fair amount of complaints from RL fans and the BBC, and they need to show they have a backbone.

They should bring him infront of the committee, and ban him. Show to the Rugby League world that the RFL DO have a backbone. Players have to follow THEIR rules and not think they are above the law.

They should tell him they don't care if next week is potentially the league leaders decider, the biggest game in SL the season, or the fact that he is one of Wigans (And dare i say it, one of the sports best players) and hit him with a ban and a fine. Especially because he DENIED doing it. He embarrassed the RFL by doing what he did and he should be FAIRLY punished for it, under the rules set by the RFL. Not just get a slap on the wrists and told not to do it again.

Maybe they tried this...

[urlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20590-rat-memory-restored-by-installing-replay-electronics.html[/url

It means that he was put on the spot and panic set in, that's all. Well done to Wigan for defusing a situation that was in danger of getting out of hand.

Exactly. He probably just didn't realise how obvious it was when he first denied his quote lol.