What a give away that was!

So you haven't even seen it?


damn hard to see what isnt there in the first place

That's the whole point, Tezzer. There was nothing in it - as was proved by the Disciplinary panel.

If Hock had been cited for the "punch" he threw (in the 58th minute?), even though it was more of a push away, I would have accepted it as he did make illegal contact with an opponent's head. I would have accepted a ban - even though it would have been harsh.

But there was absolutely nothing in Hansen's challenge if you look at it on the Sky+ replay. I don't think you'll have noticed anything untoward when watching it live on TV - neither did any of the commentators, nor the ref nor Lynch, the player who was tackled.

How "bad" was Solomona's tackle?

How do you explain the citation in the first place?

I find it hard to understand how one corner of the judiciary can decide a player has a case to answer, and the other corner - having viewed the same evidence - can decide he doesn't.

If nothing else it may have interfered slightly with Wigan's prep. Not saying that was the ploy, but if it was it will have worked.

I've not seen the incident but reading every person on here saying theres nothing in it makes you wonder why he had to turn up to be found not guilty. They must have given Hansen a couple of the worst days of his life waiting for the decision which makes it all the stranger.

They really need to find some consistency with these decisions. To call up Hansen but not Hock or Lynch is crazy by all accounts.

How to "out-troll" the trolls!

I didn't get a reply to my question about how bad Solomona's tackle was. Late last night I thus went on the Warrington board where there is a post on Solomona's citing/ban. Several pages of the usual anti-Wigan vitriol - massive injustice about Solomona being banned etc etc. I thus repeated the above post - saying Hansen should never have been cited as it was an innocuous challenge and asking again about Solomona's tackle.

There then followed some intelligent posts from Wire fans - agreeing that Hansen was innocent. Someone had seen the tackle on some highlights. It then transpired that Solomona had in fact pleaded guilty to a reckless challenge and that Baile (the tackled player) was injured because of it. It is very unlikely he will appeal because he pleaded guilty - and this indeed may have helped him escape a lengthier ban!

I assume Solomona is out of the Wigan game then?

I'm sure I remember the outcry in Oz when Thurston had to trapes all the way down to Sydney to answer a trumped up charge before the last Origin game. The mighty Maroons argued that this did nothing more than distrupt the palyer and the coaching staff, when they should have been busy honing skills elsewhere.

rlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3129rl

This was the Hansen case. He pleaded not guilty and was found not guilty.

rlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3146rl

This was the Solomona case in which he pleaded guilty but not deliberate. The injury sustained was the major aggravating factor.

The main difference between the two incidents is that Solomona committed a crusher tackle whereas Hansen didn't.

And all the Wire fans' anger at the seeming injustice of it all was totally misplaced - as usual!

The majority of Leeds fans also think it's an injustice and the RfL are biased in Wigan's favour!

If a guy pleads guilty then it's pretty difficult to see how he can be let off.

The Warrington anger is indeed misplaced.

As for Leeds, if they're so angry because Harrison Hansen has been cleared to play against them, I think it says more about them than it does about anyone else. If it was Sam Tomkins or Pat Richards I could understand it.

Supporters of dirty Carvel and dirty Bailey are not in a position to throw the first stone