How can an incident be worth a 1 match ban but not a red card? That doesnt make sense. If a player is banned for a game then his team get to play with a full quota of players in the game of the offence and the following game?

You have to understand the Disciplinary procedure. Early plea, 1 match ban. It's hard to appeal against something you've pleaded guilty to.

There are 29 pages on the VT about something similar. Personally I think he should have been off. However he wasn't. Unfortunately life in general isn't fair.

I would have liked a yellow and a stearn warning, and hopefully his team mates would have been punished during the game. Its the lack of balls the refs have that annoys me the most.

I'd agree with that, however it doesn't exactly help when a player is sent off and there's an outcry.

But sport is supposed to be, especially when you have a referee on the spot, touchjudges on either flank and the Sky cameras trained on you from virtually point-blank range, plus a VR facility.

didn't Ganso use the vr to send off Moz for GB at the JJB and when he sent Raynor off for that punch/tackle in the CC?

It was the TJ who watched the replay on the screen of the Moz one and then told Ganson.

Imo he didn't miss the head because he had second thoughts he missed because he aimed it badly and jeffries legs restrict his movement.

It's unusual for Bridge to act like this. Even Tony Smith to his credit says he'll answer and learn from it. Wonder what it was that got him so riled? There was an incident just before that Alibert missed so he may have been taking the law into his own hands.

No excuses though and he will get a ban, or should get one.

I certainly wouldn't want Bridge remembered for this. I'd prefer him to be remembered as the England three-quarter who couldn't catch the Huddersfield scum-half in a length-of-the-field foot race.