Thought this myself we would have been better going for the day. For both matches.

I’m all for banning them for punching but I do think there needs to be a system that allows for each case to be judged on its merits. By that I mean somebody like Ellis should not get the same as a man who runs in and punches from behind. Last night was a poor reaction by Ellis but it was to a poor challenge and there lad threw back as well.

I think we can all deal with it being 3 or 4 games but not 8. To me 8 would be a bit of a joke. It’s a poor reaction but it’s a reaction all the same, it’s not just somebody throwing punches for the sake of it and being a thug.

Whilst we are on, or around this topic, it's the double standards & hypocrisy that irritates me more than anything. There was a perfect example of both in last night's game.

Dudson lead with a forearm to Zak's throat last night and nothing was said or done by the ref. Likewise, nothing was said by the idiots on Sky who just talked about Wigan's mistakes instead.

Flip the incident around and ask yourself what would have happened If that was Zak, as the tackler, who'd hit Dudson in exactly the same spot. What's the difference? Likewise from a hypocrisy POV, the guys on Sky would have at least talked about it.

We (as a sport) are all either all in on this, or not. If contact above the neck = dangerous, then it doesn't matter which way that goes.

Agreed. The long-term bans should be reserved for serious foul play, like cheap shots, stamping on players or punching players on the ground.

He looks to be up for 5 to 8 games. Looking at the disciplinary site the fact he aims at the head is bad news though, so it could be top end. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a player throw a body punch but if they have enough brains to lose their head, whilst thinking on their feet, they better go for a body shot or maybe the old dead arm punch (or even better just do the Bateman grapple).