I think the 2013 Wigan team at Old Trafford had a blanket instruction from above to injure as many Wire players as possible & win the match at all costs. A great indicator of the club's lack of integrity.

Sometimes you have to get your retaliation in first

"be reckless, create chaos, mayhem etc"

I would have him no problem whatsoever.
A good hard honest forward. He takes a knock and gives a knock

I do think there is a subtle difference though.
I (and I doubt many others) have no issue with teams ripping into each other hard, particularly in the forwards. I love the physical contact and the spice it adds to the game. I don't have any real issues with a bit of "biff", but it has to be on level terms (ie there has to be a kind of "mutual agreement" between the players involved).

Some things are not "a bit of biff" and have no place in the game. These include:
1. Deliberate attacks to the head of players who are trying to play the game.
2. Late shots on players who have clearly passed/kicked the ball and who have no time to brace or defend themselves.
3. Attacks on already tackled players designed to damage the shoulder/knee/ankle joints.
4. Biting, gouging, spitting at other players, abuse of match officials (by players!).
5. By definition of the above, Gareth Hock.

Although I didn't see where the contact was made with Gale, from my perspective Westwood's tackle was late and Gale should not expect to be pummelled from his blind side long after he has passed the ball. This is not "a bit of biff" but action that can cause unnecessary injury to an innocent player. However, I've only seen it live and my perspective may be biased or simply wrong.

How outraged were you over the last few years when weller Harauki was going around hitting half backs on your teams behalf? take for example he smacked ratchford in the face in the play offs last year, deliberately after a break and he was already tackled?

Westwood www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?6738 CHARGED: One or two matches Strikes with shoulder/arm - reckless Grade – B

Westwood www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?6738 CHARGED: One or two matches Strikes with shoulder/arm - reckless Grade – B

Though he was stupid and said as such. Penalty machine and banned too often, I wasn't bothered when he left.
I by no means think our players are angels (remember we have had the likes of Sampson and Hepi in the past too) and they would fully deserve banning if they put the safety of other players at unnecessary risk through foul play.
Player safety has to come above support for any club and I don't think the game is harsh enough on foul play. You only need to look at the paralysis of the player in the NRL to see the consequences of foul play, we need to deter players as much as we can to protect the game.

It was posted in the heat of the moment, and you have my apologies.

In the end , Westwood will be punished and has put himself out of a challenge cup semi-final , possibly first match of super 8s , not done himself or the club any favours

I still find the system very frustrating, and not just this particular incident (I have said it previously lots of time if you had the time to look through my posts)

If Westwood (or any player) is banned for an on-field incident this indicates he should have been sent off at the time. It's almost the RFL's way of saying the referee got it wrong! With the amount of suspensions each year, that's an awful lot of foul play the referees are not acting strongly enough against.

Banning any player for the following game(s) is usually no consolation to the team who were actually damaged by his foul play through the loss of a player (in this case for 74 minutes!).

I would propose that one game of any suspension is served the next time the offender plays the team he committed the offence against. So, if Westwood gets a one match ban, it should be served next time the club he is playing for plays against Castleford. If he gets two matches, he should be banned for the following game (regardless of opposition) and then the next time he is due to play the team he committed the offence against.

At least this way the affected team have some kind of justice served for having the offence committed against them.

Depending on his ban and the Super 8's fixture scheduling you may get your wish.

Possibly, but my argument is more with the general system that this specific incident. I've said it lots of times - Rangi Chase on Brett Ferres and James Green on Travis Burns spring to mind.

I just think that the team offended against very rarely gain the compensation of the suspension. Indeed, sometimes the advantage is indirectly given to the rivals of the team offended against (for example if you have Huddersfield first up, they will gain the advantage of a player suspended for an offence committed against their closest rivals!).

But on the other side, how many times have you played a team missing a player(s) suspended because of offences committed against other teams. Cliche I know (and one I don't particularly like) but over time it does even itself up.

I think the onus should be on the match day officials (there would be at least 6 of them there yesterday) to be good enough to get things right as often as humanly possible, and then have the nuts to make decisions at the time rather than handing them on to someone else.

Told you there was nothing wrong with him.