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

I wouldn't hold out much hope of an appeal if i were Wire fans either. As Solomona said he would respect the panel's decision.

Was it worthy of a ban?

LOL

Did these Leeds fans also notice that Sinfield and Kirke were also "let off" by the same panel for incidents in the game against Quins?

Very good. But still waiting for an answer to the question.

Try reading the disciplinary item it's all explained in there. I still wouldn't expect it to alter your delusional view of the world though, so perhaps don't bother.

Wow ... it's been a long time since someone's disagreed with you, hasn't it.

What was to stop them reaching the same conclusion before he was even charged? They had all the same evidence.

Besides Hansen and the coaching staff's testimony, yeah. In effect they sent the incident for review, reviewed it and found him not guilty. But no, it's a conspiracy against Wigan to knock us off our stride before the final.



Never mind Solomona getting banned from potentially Wire's biggest game of the season.

Nothing to do with him pleading guilty, and the player subsequently being injured from the incident?

They reviewed it, he pleaded guilty, was found guilty and got banned. Or perhaps it was a ploy to stop him from enjoying the final on TV.

I'm pretty sure that somewhere down the line someone said the recommended minimum punishment for this kind of offence is a single match ban. I didn't see the Solo incident, but if Solo pleaded guilty, which he supposedly did, there's not much else they could do.

I did see the Hansen incident. I also saw Wigan's explanation, which gave good insight into tackling technique etc, but even without that I thought the citation was frivolous. There was nothing intentional or even reckless in that tackle. They ought to have the expertise to recognise that without the accused player having to explain it to them.