Exactly but Radford's offence wasn't a case of him running into a brawl with the sole purpose of punching someone, and related to a judgement call about the amount of pressure he put on an opponents joint.

The fact he had a exceptional disciplinary record meant he was charged with a lesser outcome as the above incident is subjective, whereas S Tomkins is a fact.

I'd be surprised if they attempted to appeal under these circumstances and risk a 2 match ban which means he would also miss the Wire game.

3 matches last season but tbf it was deserved as there wasn't actually a brawl going on at the time and it was pre-emptive action on Mase's part. Also he hasn't exactly got the best disciplinary record having previously got a ban for lamping jamie Peacock in a pre-season match.

Not that game, i'm talking about the season before where he ran in to a brawl to throw a punch, also at Wigan.
3mins 53secs in
rlhttps://www.superleague.co.uk/video/player.php?id

And this exceptional record would include this would it ?

rlhttps://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2217rl

Sometimes they just don't help themselves do they ?

It would seem it does include that. I don't know all the details of his disciplinary record though, perhaps when you look at the entire picture instead of one incident in isolation the reference to his previous record will make more sense.

Quote: PONNER "Not that game, i'm talking about the season before where he ran in to a brawl to throw a punch, also at Wigan. 3mins 53secs in rlhttps://www.superleague.co.uk/video/player.php?id'" I'm fairly sure he got off without a ban for that one. Wasn't that the one where he was charged with striking but Paul Anderson pointed out that the RFL define striking as hitting with the fist or forearm and what Mason actually did was tackle the player and he was only trying to help out his team mate? Edit: yep he appears to have got off for that one. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?860

Quote: PONNER "Not that game, i'm talking about the season before where he ran in to a brawl to throw a punch, also at Wigan. 3mins 53secs in rlhttps://www.superleague.co.uk/video/player.php?id'" I'm fairly sure he got off without a ban for that one. Wasn't that the one where he was charged with striking but Paul Anderson pointed out that the RFL define striking as hitting with the fist or forearm and what Mason actually did was tackle the player and he was only trying to help out his team mate? Edit: yep he appears to have got off for that one. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?860

In fairness to Radford he doesn't appear to have had many scrapes with the disciplinary panel, but you can hardly pass judgement in one case by describing it as "A virtual assault" and then not ban him, because of an exceptional previous record.

FWIW I have no problem with the bans for both Sam and Joel, I just wish that a consistent approach is taken when punishments are dished out.

all that fans ask for is consistancy. whether it is good or bad it doesnt really matter, as long as every player is treated exactly the same then you will get no arguments

You're making judgements on the RFL's view of a players disciplinary record without knowing that record in detail. All you know for sure is that it isn't an unblemished record. Without knowing Radford's record in detail it is impossible for you to claim that the RFL are being consistent or otherwise. And consistent with whom? It's not going to be consistent with Keith Mason say, who would now probably get 2 games if he'd committed the offence Radford did knowing that he has a bit more previous. So you need to know all the details about every player being compared and the RFL's subsequent decision. You then also have to take into account the particular incident and it's severity. Players aren't the same, they don't have the same previous. Not all high tackles are the same in severity, intent etc. You can't just apply a blanket judgement.

The RFL do make mistakes, for sure, and there is plenty of room for improvement but I think so far this season they have shown signs of improvement on the disciplinary front and in particular in the area of upholding decisions on appeal.

MASSIVE over reaction....

yes you are right as the pie eaters won't dare mess with the Giants you've tried it in Scotland but you won't try it again

friday could be a blood bath!!! a massive over reaction!!!!

It is a massive over reaction as you lot won't dare take a cheap shot at one of the Giants as there would be pay back of a grander scale dished out to the pie eaters

you got your fighting head on this week Joe, 1st the bulls now the pies .....are you angry my friend ??

angry as hell Daz ggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. must be the Scottish mentality rubbing off on me. Just need a blue nose and the shakes every morning to fit in