The disciplinary committee is a load of b011⁰ck5

Didn’t think there was that much in it. Sarginson went to put a shot on, no doubt, but Shaul was very low down, mitigating circumstances for me. If a Wire player had copped a ban for that, I wouldn’t have been impressed.

No issue with it...gives them no excuses.

Salford now appealing the appeal for Luke Yates. How many goes do they get? https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... t-19020620 Not sure what the incident was and whether it deserved a ban, but the fact you can appeal against an appeal decision seems crazy.

Salford now appealing the appeal for Luke Yates. How many goes do they get? https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... t-19020620 Not sure what the incident was and whether it deserved a ban, but the fact you can appeal against an appeal decision seems crazy.

As I said on an earlier thread
I'm all for "the biff" but that was ridiculous. If you watch the view from behind the dead ball line, AT NO TIME, did Sarginson make eye contact with the ball. He set out to wallop Shaul.....mission accomplished.
In these times of [iplayer welfare[/i, I'm amazed a ban was overturned. He knew what he was doing.

Salford got away with plenty, last night. Wouldn't surprise me, if Yates' punishment was a nice sit down with a cup of tea, and to be poked with the soft cushions.
He certainly WON'T get the Spanish Inquisition

Oh you never know...after all one of their chief weapons was Surprise

The Sargenson decision was plakn wrong.
The ban should have stood - 1 match minimum.
It doesn't matter who they were next up to play.
Really poor decision to overturn it.

Quote: Shazbaz "Upheld so i believe.'" https://www.rugby-league.com/article/57 ... luke-yates Yes and not happy about it over on deviltalk.

Quote: Shazbaz "Upheld so i believe.'" https://www.rugby-league.com/article/57 ... luke-yates Yes and not happy about it over on deviltalk.

Their method of communication is two Cadbury's drinking chocolate tins and a length of hairy string

That was the mitigation claim by Chris Hill for his high-shot sending off away at Wigan in the first game of the season. Didn't work then.

Using 'the player was low down' or 'falling' isn't really any excuse for a shot that ends up nearly taking a players head off.

Especially when you consider BMM's tackle on the Hudds prop and subsequent ban. Sarginsons attempt on Shaul was at least reckless and deserving of two matches.

It should have been a red card and 1 match ban. Sarginson was determined to get Shaul come what may. Shouldn’t make any difference to the result on Saturday. (Hull have reason to feel aggrieved though).