for which incident?

Ian Lenagan wrote:We were disappointed last year at the number of sentences which were overturned upon appeal and were one of the Club's requesting that the RFL change and improve significantly the fairness, balance and transparency of the Disciplinary Process. Our experience in this case where a key Wigan player has been banned from an extremely important game is that the process is much improved and highly professional. Consequently, we accept the decision, albeit with disappointment for the Player and the Club, and look forward to a Season of consistent and fair Disciplinary Panel decisions and general acceptance of decisions taken

Thought it was 2 games for each offence so he could have got 4.

correct

Imagine a murderer up in court "Ive only done it once before in my whole life so you can you please let me off?"



A clean record means you havent been done for anything before and especially not anything similar to what your being accused of this time!.

Seems silly to me. Both offences were clear as day and I think 2 match ban was fair. If the red card has been early on then yes appeal but it was in last 20 so he didn't [ireally[/i miss massaive game time.

Given the lack of info on the RFL website we don't know what Joel was found guilty of. The only thing I've read was that he was found guilty of the elbow, but he was up on two charges so it may be he was found not guilty of the fighting one given it was Yeaman who was the instigator? Who knows.

I remember much talk of moral high ground and "Leeds take note" after that. Didn't last very long.

Which shows that he has come to the conclusion that this was unfair.

I suspect that he does not feel Joel's actual ban is unfair but rather the difference between his and the Hull player's bans.

You dont appeal a decision based on how much game time they lost due to being off the field for a red/yellow card, you appeal because you think the punishment is too harsh for the offence that had been committed. To be honest I thought 2 was fair I was expecting 3, hopefully no harm in appealing and the ban is either reduced or at least not extended.

First impressions live and then later on TV were it was very bad, lucky to get away with a 2 week ban.

Then view the incident in slow motion and it's clear his forearm hits the chest first. Sending off sufficient. There is no way the RFL will not reduce the ban on appeal, if they do they're setting a very dangerous precedant of being banned for chest impact

Exactly. I usually hate this "watched from another angle" rubbish but this clearly is a case where it needs to be watched from every angle and a decision made.

Though to be honest if they did their job correctly they should already have done this.