Sorry......miscount.
Fatty Sat on the Loo has been up 6 times so far this year.
1. High Tackle = No case
2. Chickenwing = 1 game
3. Leads with Knee into tackle/Jumps in = Letter
4. High Tackle = No case
5. Slaps an opponent = Man to man, no case
6 Leads with Arm into Tackle = Formal Caution

So 6 incidents, including 2 which are dangerous play going into a tackle which could injure the tackler, a slap around the face (lucky no eye contact there), two high tackles and a chickenwing (topical).....and he gets 1 game.
Clubby on the other hand is up on 2 charges (first time in 12 months) and gets 2 games and a letter

What really gets my back up is that Clubbs young and has a pretty good record, but gets slamed, whilst fattysatontheloo is a seasoned pro who has twice gone into would be tacklers with either his knee or forearm raised this season alone and he gets letters
Over 2 years:
3 visits to the diciplinary for Clubb ends in 1 match, 2 matches and a letter.
10 visits for the Saints player gets 1 letter, 1 game and a caution. In these 10 visits, he has also been pulled up for running in and striking a player.......mmmm...where have I heard that before? Oh yes, LMS got hammered for that while FSOTL got........nothing

It says he does have his hand between his legs but it is Lolesi (sp) who is at fault for lowering his head, so expect him to be punished for suggesting that a saints player had attempted an illegal tackle that had the potential to cause him injury.

Just another example of the inconsistancy in dishing out punishment for infringements.
It goes to prove what an absolute joke the disciplinary commitee are!!!

You shouldn't be worrying about other teams, Bronco Billy.

You've got enough problems with Quins and your fantasy team.

You're right about that DSWG.
Both seem to be going the same way. (Down the pan).

Yes it does now, but I could swear that when I first read it, it said "does not".

As it is now, it says "... player does have hands between legs and penalty sufficient". That doesn't read right.

If it said "does not have" then the "and" would make sense, but as it now says "does have", then logically the "and" should be a "but" should it not?

Methinks they've changed the wording after somebody pointed out to them that there were hands between legs.