Or call someone names and get twelve! I obviously disagreed with McGuire's actions but you'd think physical violence would trump words.

Saints appealing that Welsby did not win the Man of Steel.

Terry Newton only got 7 games for smashing Sean Longs cheekbone.

Williams appeal deemed frivolous and extended to two games. Matty Lees reduced to a grade A and a fine.

We need to change our lawyers.

They've been told - unsurprisingly we splash a lot of cash on ours....and look at the results.

I wonder if the damage is done by KF gurning around the courtroom, crucifix earring and all, doing the opening statement.

We really do, this isn't a level playing field at all, saints definitely get preferential treatment to the extent that their fans boil in outrage when they get the same treatment as everyone else. They expect preferential treatment they're so used to it.

Has there been any other frivolous ban extensions this season? It's an utter joke, I honestly feel its affecting the sporting integrity of rugby league in this country.

Finally bringing a half good news post.

Can we not appeal again and get GW another ban?
Rest him up til next season.

It's almost as if the fact we didn't have the usual pre-Grand Final disciplinary drama they've felt the need to cook one up. Completely mad and there have been far more frivolous appeals all year.

The lost art of gurning, I wonder whether it is still a thing competitively rather than the odd unfortunate expression?

BTW back to Williams, it's a good job we've got Cullen in our back pockets.

Unless you know the content of the appeals, I doubt that's true. There are guidelines on what you can appeal, there has to be a reason for it. You can't just go back with 'we think it's harsh, he's a nice lad' etc. You've got to have a reason why it either doesn't qualify for the kind of charge that has been brought or why it can't be the grade it's been charged at.

The MRP has again just got ahead of itself and charged players completely without need. Lees does absolutely nothing wrong, the Catalans player backs into the tackle, drops himself to the floor with his back to the tackler. What can Lees do in that situation, he's not put the player there and makes no attempt to hurt the player once he's there. The referee spotted that and told the player to get on with the play the ball as he knew what he was trying to do, to milk a penalty. Yet the MRP just see pressure with the neck and ban Lees.

Why don't they just trust the referees? Why is there this enormous chasm between what a referee sees an appropriate punishment being and what the MRP sees? Williams is another good example. The match officials see it, penalise it and warn Williams about it. He then judges that it's not worthy of a yellow card and I agree with that, the treatment is 100% correct. Then the MRP wade in and ban Williams, suggesting the referee was wrong and should have RED carded him. Imagine how stupid a game we'd have if Williams was sent off for that? To make matters worse, Keighran in the semi final hits Percival smack in the chin off the ball with the point of his shoulder, with a decent amount of impact. Not spotted by the referee, not banned.

I just don't see why the MRP exists with the scope it has now. The MRP's role should be to grade the red cards given by the match officials (As a yellow card is 10 minutes punishment, deemed to not be worth a whole game, so why the MRP add further bans to those I'll never know) and to review anything the match officials note in their match reports and pick up any SERIOUS ones the referees miss or make a mistake on. They should not be forensically going through 11 camera angles of every game to search for any little possible reason to ban a player. No other sport does this.

No s*** Sherlock?!

I think it's a reasonable assumption that by now the Wire legal team know when they should/should not appeal.

That said, the MRP's definition of frivolous seems to be more than a little elastic. Earlier in the season Matty Lees appealed TWICE against the same charge. Both times his appeal was rejected. You would think the second appeal was the dictionary definition of frivolous. Unless, of course, some new evidence had come to light - perhaps Uncle Eamon had received a copy of the Zapruder film shot from the grassy knoll (or might that be the grubby Knowles) - proving the existence of a second shooter?

And before you accuse me of sour grapes, I'm actually glad George had his suspension bumped up - I wish it was three matches - it was the mid-season international against France that started his decline in form (imo).

It would appear not. Unless we hear what they've based it on, it's hard to say.

Can't get my head round grabbing someone's shirt to help them up which is a 4 match ban and a swinging arm to someone's face which is a 2 match ban..then on local news last night we had Keith senior talking about concussion in sport and the need to look after players..well let's start increasing bans for cheap dirty shots like matautias ...