After a couple of "benefit of doubt" tries awarded to Warrington, I enjoyed our fans in the Wheldon Road end singing "It's a Try" the next time a Warrington player was clearly held up over the line.
Became less funny when Warrington scored from the next play.

My bias eyes aren't what they were but does gale slip slightly before his offload? Doesn't look that bad at all to me.

Penalty nothing more.


However, what a tackle on Carney to prevent the try by Russell. That's amazing.

rlrl

First contact = arm to shoulder?

Picture sums it up arm first and Bennie isn't even looking at Gale , hard to tell from poor coverage but ,I felt Gale dummies to go right then turned left and caught Bennie out but, we will see how panel view it ,I'd suggest decision will be nothing more than guess work

I read somewhere in defence of Bennie that Gale admitted he milked it.

nothing tackle...... penalty sufficient

It looked bad enough for one game on the SL show tonight. There is footage and Bennie caught Gale on left side of the jaw with a clenched hand. Bang to rights from that angle I'd say, a definite ban unless there is another video angle, which I doubt.

Watching that video it doesn't look late at all, Benny is about one step away from Gale at full pelt when the ball is passed. Gale certainly doesn't have his back to him like some were suggesting earlier.

Definitely high though, no question there, and frankly not surprising either...

It's funny because the way it was reported by the Cas lot, it sounded like a flat out attack on a defenseless half back from behind, 4 secs after the ball had gone. As it happens, it's just a love tap that comes off the shoulder, pretty much as he releases the ball. I'd like to think penalty sufficient, although I wouldn't argue with 1 match as he's been charged. 2 matches would be ridiculous given some of the things that go unpunished.

The trouble with these incidents is the inconsistency of the officials and the rules being to open. Can't we just go to a situation of players passing or kicking the ball who are hit after the ball has left there feet/hands, attacking player is sin binned?

I know there's a lot of it about and some teams would have more in the bin than on the pitch. Lets have a rule that everyone knows what the punishment is. Believe me I am not one for softening the game but the rules have to be understood by coaches, players and fans alike.

The disciplinary committee need livening up, when looking at the situation at hand, questions like "did he shoulder barge"? simple yes or no answer not a day of justification as to whether his hands and arms were above the horizontal, blah blah. The game needs to grow some balls!

We outlaw a shoulder charge but allow players every week to be taken down in cannonball tackles by trying to justify the place and direction of the hit. Cannonball tackle = ban, Shoulder charge = ban. Player making contact with the ref, should never be in a players mind to do that instead of the stupid ban stick them in the sin bin straight away, end of matter.

The Westwood/Gale thing, did Westwood contact the head its a yes or no folks. If yes its a simple red card and on report if further action is needed. Did Gale really say he was milking it? If he did then that's another issue to deal with.

The message from me is if there's an indiscretion punish it as hard as you can. That will create the consistency we all crave.

Anyway rant over, off to a disciplinary hearing for a member of staff.

Yes, of course he did. He just wanted an excuse to leave the field and take a trip to Pontefract A+E.

Technically, it cannot be anything other than late. You cannot tackle a player not in possession and gale clearly doesn't have the ball.
However, it's not ridiculously late but it is a bit late and high.
I always err towards the harsh side of penalising foul play so don't think he could complain at two games, though a one match suspension would be consistent with other incidents this season.