So, let's get this right, you can basically assault someone on a pitch and get yourself a 2, 3, maybe 4 game ban, but if you call a big 6ft+, 16st+ opponent a naughty word you get a 7 game ban?

Joke of a sport. If that's where this sport and society are heading then I'm not interested.

I'll be back for the 'Powell Out' threads in a fortnight's time....

I never knew that he instantly became a distinguished man of letters.

EXTINGUISHED man of letters, perhaps!

It's definitely worth appealing (the length of the ban surely ?) I was talking to Neil Turley (who is on the disciplinary committee) about the Matty Knowles ban being over turned at the end of last season. He said that the initial appeal it would be more than likely be same 3 people who made their decision, but if you appeal for a 2nd time it be 3 different folk, who might come to a different conclusion.

Given the sport is doing so much for LDRL, it really has to be punished. Warrington as a club are pioneers of this side of the community game and it's work is commendable, so I'm sure they're furious with him.

How many games you put on that punishment is hard to say, but you've got to make it an incentive to not do it again and you've got to show the RL community and wider that you are taking a stand on it. It does set a precedent that I guess would have to be matched for any words that fall into the categories of sexuality, gender, race or disability. Go to any older junior or amateur RL game and you'll get tons of that, relatively mild insults that fall into those categories. Hopefully the players all take this on board and it doesn't become an issue, but it is difficult when you're full of adrenaline and frustration.

That's falling into the Leeds category of appeal and would bring the possibility of it being judged frivolous. To get a disciplinary committee to overturn a decision you've got to have a case to make, which a lot of clubs don't seem to do. They're just emotional and appeal as they don't agree with the decision. Just going back and saying 'please can you reduce it, he's not hurt anyone' definitely qualifies as frivolous. The Knowles ban was overturned because the first appeal committee agreed with Saints medical evidence (Provided at appeal) that it didn't go beyond the natural range of motion of an arm. Once they'd done that Saints could appeal as it no longer qualified under the wording of the offence.

No he’s not, there is a precedent for such behaviour.

He got one game less than Tony Clubb for a similar incident. The precedent had already been set and in that context he got off lightly. Whether the sentence fits the crime is now an irrelevance.

I have absolutely no argument with anything you’ve written, but this surely also applies to any in-game indiscretions that cause psychological or physical harm in wider society, many of which are much worse and happening every week.

So what’s your Saints-based opinion on your own players such as Makinson not having a precedent set in regards to him squeeziing genitalia without consent (5 games?), or Knowles getting nothing for deliberately trying to injure a player’s arm? Can you pull up some Saints threads where everyone was calling for year-long or lifetime bans to discourage sexual assault and GBH?

It’s not about the length of the ban or the reason, it’s about the consistency.

The rules are the rules & he broke them, end of story.

Whether it is "fair" or not is completely irrelevant, they are the rules and they were known about so the 'I didn't punch/trip/grab his bits/chicken wing anyone' defence that's being thrown around on here simply does not matter.

All I would ask is that the committee are now consistent in their interpretation of this rule, and the others, from this point onwards. The game is dying on its ar5e as it is without fans getting ever more disillusioned over poor disciplinary administration.

No i wouldn't mate to be fair, but on the flip side he's not used it towards someone with a disability. It's basically school yard name calling so on paper it seems well over the top. BUT rules are rules, i think i'm spitting my dummy out a bit as he won't be playing for us until April and annoyed by it.

Fair comment

Absolutely this. We can't argue that he needed to be punished or that the comment didn't fall in to the charge category, especially given what we are trying to achieve as a club for inclusion with pdrl rugby league etc. I think the ban is a little bit lengthy for the infringement personally, but so long as there is consistency with everyone who makes comments that fall within this category receiving 7 games then I don't think any of us will have an issue.

Are such words still used in the Land of Oz? They disappeared from general vocabulary over here many years ago. Maybe a book of words not used in Blighty should be given to imported players ,or maybe the club should be more careful who it signs, in the first place.

He should have just punched him, he would have gotten banned for less games ha ha