Its not paranoia, its downrght ANGER! I'm sick and bl@@@y tired of watching incidents in Super League games an then players being found N/G etc...
We saw young Hughes at Warrington stick his hand in Mc Scarsbrick's cheek and squeese his cheek, very near to his Eye! Commentators said,"he appeared to attack him around the eye" too right he did! result NFA !! Saints Walsh picks a Catalan player up, inverts him, holds him and then throw him to the floor were he landed on the back of his neck! punishment, Sin Bin then NFA Higham got three games for far less
That game at Swinton saw us loose three players to suspension yet Swinton, are involved every week in melee's !!
We got slaughtered by Childs at Fev and their Prop Griffin was dishing it out and getting away with it, ask Mickey?
Stop criticising our own players when it comes to aggression Ablett and Ferris will show us how its done at Leeds, they manage it every week!
Acton is a very powerful player and full of energy, I say we keep him! not seen his terrible Grade 'C' offence yet however, the match reporters give 8 out 10 !

I have repeatedly said on the forum that Acton is one of the most improved players this season. That said he is an absolute liability and what makes it worse he gets involved in stuff which he could easily stay away from - eg cheap shot on Flanagan.

The team have been fantastic in the improvement of their discipline - except for Acton - and for those reasons IMO he has to go.

In my opinion, Acton has what it takes to go all the way in RL. But he MUST stop the silly little niggles that are costing him/us big time. Does he deserve punishing for last Saturday? Yes, if he's guilty of what the disciplinary review people saw. (I've not watched it yet)

Was Soward guilty the week before? Well, that was also an attack to the back of someone who wasn't in possession, but he wasn't even referred for that. For my money, that's inconsistency - nothing to do with bias.

Actually, you could argue that Acton will be targeted, but by the disciplinary committee, rather than the review panel. The committee do take into account any 'previous' and Jamie certainly has plenty of that

Well banned or not he wouldn't be in my team for the rest of the qualifiers after that - luck to stay on the field and a liability that we can ill afford at the moment

You're quite right Alan. Here's a similar one.

Stand-off Kurt Gidley was under review for a possible charge of Other Contrary Behaviour ( same as Acton's),but will face no further action.

The review relates to an incident in the 42nd minute at Belle Vue when Gidley pushed Wildcats half-back Jacob Miller in the back without the ball, but the panel deemed the on-field penalty as sufficient punishment.

The panel must have deemed Acton's push more volatile.

Acton wasn't penalised because the officials didn't see it therefore "On field penalty" can't be sufficient.

Fair enough,but grade c ?

I'm not condoning what Acton has done for one minute,but Sowards was just as bad and he got NFA.
Am i missing something?

I think Acton will get NFA, if the nearest TJ had noticed it we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So if the TJ sees it and a penalty is given, would Acton not have been charged? Or been given penalty sufficient?

Also does the VR communicate with the officials during the game of play?

Acton would have got "On field penalty" sufficient.

The VR shouldn't advise on anything unless he has been asked to do so by the ref.

So because it wasn't seen at the time, it then became a Grade C. Crazy if you ask me.

Thanks anyway.

Unbelievable that people are blaming Acton's idiocricy on the officials or some misguided belief of some agenda against Leigh. I am also not interested on what liabilities reside in other teams, I do however care about placing numb skulls in my own team. We don't need this risk, not now.

Can you imagine Weston or Moi Moi doing what Acton did. Even Hopkins or young Spenner? No, they are more far professional running their blood to water for the team , their fans, their club and it's Super League aspirations. They are intelligent enough to know what is required. A controlled , disciplined game.

Flanagon was just recovering from an accidental head injury and Acton charged him from behind full pelt to the ground and for no apparent reason. He could have sustained further injury.

Are you sure there ? If the TJ had seen Acton, he would have observed Acton running at full speed off the ball, away from the action taking out an opposition player. His flag would be up and play would be stopped. After hearing the TJs version the ref would also note that Flanagon was down injured from it, off the ball. It is then interpretation. I think a number of referees would deem punishment warrents more than a penalty. A penalty to Salford that could still have cost us the game I hasten to add.

Send him out. He is only two games in to a return from a 7 match ban. Enough is enough.

I don't think anyone is blaming the officials on Acton's idiotic behavior. I for one have said on a couple of post that i don't condone what he has done. The point you are missing Mr Rigby is the inconsistency of the disciplinary panel. When you used the term full pelt from behind, It was exactly the same as J Soward on Worthy with a different disciplinary outcome,but as reffy pointed out, it would have been penalty sufficient if the TJ had seen it. It beggars belief.

And btw -"If you care so much about placing numb skulls in your own team" You need to have a word with juksey on that one.