Reckon they burnt that one with the Knowles appeal.

Please don’t give Saddo more to whine about he already thinks they have had more injustice than the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 added together

If you feeling down or just plain bored go read Redvee disciplinary, they really are from another planet.

There was a time if I wanted a conspiracy theory I'd watch a YouTube documentary but now all I need is redvee!

It's all fake, totally fake, so fake you wouldn't believe it.

There is clear evidence we're treated differently to the other sides in Super League. I'm not suggesting it's a huge conspiracy to prevent us winning a 5th title in a row as some suggest, I just think there is genuine bad blood on a personal level between the MRP and Saints over the Knowles appeal last year. That thoroughly embarrassed them and made them look stupid. Since then, every misplaced step from Saints is a ban. No cautions, no let offs for good records, straight bans everywhere. If someone comes into your work and pulls you up very publicly for doing something extremely badly, it's human nature to be affronted by that and you'll look for any opportunity to pay back the embarrassment and humiliation, even if it's just on a subconscious level.

Saints get a ban for every 5 penalties we concede in Super League. Huddersfield have had one ban all season. They have had two yellow cards for cannonballs, one yellow for a high tackle and a red card for a blatant strike to the face with an elbow just in games against us. No bans at all. They've had a further four cards this season, producing just one 1 game ban.

I know for fans of other clubs, it's hilarious because we're getting injuries and bans all over the place and are miles off winning anything this year. But take away the hatred of Saints and the derision of me, do you honestly believe a Saints player would get off with a caution for the tackle English did? Would we get away with the elbow to the face Greenwood got 0 games for? The cannonball would be an F and a tribunal for us.

Poppycock you've had players that have had fines and not been banned just like any other clubs..thing is your being punished on a similar level to other clubs and it's not going down to well with you lot..take your medicine and crack on like others do...

Utter nonsense, as SAM says above you have had citations with NFA, fines, etc no just straight bans.

I loved reading the so called statistical analysis on Redvee it was hilarious, a clear example of Mark Twains old adage.

As other clubs we could have the opinion that the refs are letting us down on the field against Saints, and it is so much easier to plan for bans etc than it would be if your players were actually sent off/sin binned in the first place.

I also find it amusing that the constant reference to the Knowles incident, such a great example of a guilty conscious, you all know you got the dirty little grub off on a technicality and subconsciously you know you should be punished so you project on to the MRP, just suck it up, your a team the plays on the edge of legality for every advantage you can get in the name of professionalism and will never be able to take the moral high ground.

re. the single issue of the English "tackle" he ought to get about a six match ban. Much more dangerous than a smack round the ear'ole.

It wasn't against a 'planted' leg though - that may be because of luck rather than good judgement, but it is what it is. There could be an argument for a small ban, but the incident was dealt with on the field (as it should be), so they returned no ban. Maybe if he had not had that onfield punishment we would have seen a small ban.

Suggesting it should be Grade F is just ridiculous.

All that is based on current guidelines. I'm perfectly happy for guidelines to be changed and there be a straight red for attacking the legs of a player whose momentum has stopped, they can include the 'Asiata' tackle in that ruling if the RFL deem it to be dangerous as well. I also think it is perfectly fine to change these guidelines mid season if a danger to the player has been identified.

It was one of those tackles that makes you wince & think that can't be right. The attacking player who is held is a sitting duck. I do not know the current guidelines but we have made a huge fuss recently about attacks to the head. I think it's time to protect other vulnerable parts too. I'd change guidelines tomorrow if it stopped injury.

If you are referring to the one against Saints - this was a tackle above the knee on a running player. If we ban that type of tackle the game will be in (more) trouble.

With the 'Asiata' tackles there has to be more debate about what is/isn't allowed. I'm sure his tackling is going to cause a fuss now in every game he plays e.g. at Wembley. But that shouldn't stop the "English" tackle being outlawed immediately.

There was a big if in my comment. The RFL should look at any tackle it deems dangerous and if on review it needs banning it should come in as soon as possible, rather than waiting till seasons end was my thinking. Wasn't necessarily suggesting the Asiata comment be banned, just using it as an example of something the RFL should constantly review and tweak things as necessary.

I understand. The issue to me is that just playing the game runs the risk of "danger" or injury to the players involved. This is a contact sport where physically hurting the opponent is within the laws of the game and advantageous.

There are typically 600 tackles in an RL game, and 132 games in a regular season. This equates to ~80,000 tackles. How many have created season ending injury?

The bedwetting and handwringing over the Asiata tackle which was above the knee of a running player is ridiculous. This is the game of RL.