I believe the Saints club would only allow a brief statement by Matautia to support Vaughan, the Saints club don't trust the disciplinary at all and didn't want Matautia to incriminate himself. It was just a time wasting slow play the ball and they didn't want to give the disciplinary the opportunity to accuse and discipline him for cheating. The disciplinary are just a load of bullocks most of the time.

They have to ban him ( as they did with the others ) because he doesn't know for sure if someone is injured or not,it's as simple as don't drag a player up. That's the rule,it's in no way comparable to law courts so that's not a valid analogy.

We must be top of the pile for bans this season
With 14 for McGuire, 6 for Dudson, now 4 for Vaughan , that’s 24 man-games lost
Apologies to others I can’t think of now

In response to brook40 (sorry, the quote facility appears to be not working), it's the grading system that's wrong here, in my opinion. We all know the kind of incident this rule is aiming to stamp out, and Vaughan's was clearly nothing like one of those. It's obviously a minor incident (if you can even call it that) at the lowest end of the scale for this 'offence', so why make that scale begin at four matches? It just makes the whole process look ridiculous.

So, and apologies if I sound surprised, you’re a Warrington fan?
I suspect I’m not the only one that will take some convincing.

As someone posted on Facebook, Jon Wilkin will be having wet dreams over this banning. As for me i expect him to go on a major rant about it on Sky.

Quote: thelinesman "As someone posted on Facebook, Jon Wilkin will be having wet dreams over this banning. As for me i expect him to go on a major rant about it on Sky.'" Wilkin thinks it’s a joke of a decision. https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/jon-wilk ... ban-82313/

Quote: thelinesman "As someone posted on Facebook, Jon Wilkin will be having wet dreams over this banning. As for me i expect him to go on a major rant about it on Sky.'" Wilkin thinks it’s a joke of a decision. https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/jon-wilk ... ban-82313/

Appeal failed, no shock there then.

We’ve battered Vaughan this season - send him for an extended break, we’re not going to get to OT never mind win the league, and have him raring to go in the new year.

RFL disciplinary rule book was written by some kids with crayons 80 years ago.

Middleton comments on the Paul Vaughan ban. The club needed to be more vocal IMHO given the tacit acceptance of the 2nd McGuire ban, when there was no evidence whatsoever. https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... ughan-ban/

Middleton comments on the Paul Vaughan ban. The club needed to be more vocal IMHO given the tacit acceptance of the 2nd McGuire ban, when there was no evidence whatsoever. https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... ughan-ban/

this might be the silliest ban RL has ever seen.

The solution is simple. From this point forwards we send video clips every week from every where the same thing happens players get touched on the floor. Then we hound the RFL to keep hounding out four match bans. Let's see how that goes down.

So we become saints? Sure that's why they get lesser and fewer bans, the disciplinary panel are scared of them.

It all needs an overhaul, we all agree that we need to protect players, but we need to protect the sport as well, I agree with everything in Stuart Middleton's statement and hope that we get some common sense.

The Discipline Police have clearly got this wrong. Of course the game doesn't want players taking things into their own hands with potentially injured players being man handled but on this occasion perhaps a sensible compromise would have been to give him say, a 1 match ban and a severe reprimand issuing a statement that enforces that players are not doctors and should not interfere with players on the ground. It is up to the officials to manage the situation and potentially add on time.