You're missing the extra mitigating factor - the ref got it wrong on the day. Making sure they protect their own, by doubling down adds at least one more game to the total.

All we're missing now is a nice PR article about insert [death threats on social/wider family abuse/mental health] and we'll really see that they know they f'd-up.

It's hard to compare incidents involving Saints and Wigan players without it seeming like you're using it as an opportunity to points score against our rivals but those 2 tackles are ones which were of a similar nature and I'd love to know why there was a huge difference in outcome. I'm totally confused by them. With my old school head on I say even the Percival decision was harsh but I think people can live with 2 games for that and for the Byrne one but 4 games? As you say, how is it twice as bad? Byrne puts far more effort in to wrap the arms. It honestly seems as straightforward as the fact Byrne is bigger than Percival and Percival is smaller than Ormondroyd, so they think Byrne could do more damage on Percival than Percival could do on Ormondroyd. The facts are it would take a smaller man more effort to hit a bigger man high than it would the other way around, so should they not be flipped?


It's all going round in circles anyway and it isn't about club rivalries in the slightest. Giving a lad a 4 game ban and a £750 fine for accidental contact is disgraceful. What would Byrne be on a year? £60-80k?? A good wage in the real world but these lads have bills to pay like anyone else. Why does he need to be sat down for 4 games and then on top be hit with a fine like that? Oliver Holmes was kicking off over the fines and he's right. Do things such as appearance money or winning bonus still exist? I guess not but young players in particular would be knackered if they do. In general the players are massively underpaid for the risks they take and the entertainment they provide and now they're getting battered like this. Some must think they'd be better off dropping down to the Championship or lower and getting a job on the side.

It definitely isn't intended as points scoring. I respect FTV's opinion even when I disagree with it so I take his assessment on board but counter it with my own different view and I think a "similar" verdict isn't unreasonable. Saints fans can also point to comparable incidents that they've come out on the wrong end of too, although I draw the line at the conspiracy nonsense some of them have taken to.

The point of my post was the sheer inconsistency of the disciplinary. It's ludicrous that they can arrive at such wildly different sanctions for what amounts to very similar incidents. I get that no two incidents are exactly alike but twice as bad?!?! Utter nonsense..

Re the Bryne ban:

Compare with Liam Watts. Bryne makes more of an effort to wrap his arms. Has a better disciplinary record. It was widely accepted by hicks and the RFL that there had been some OTT decisions and they would be easing off in certain areas as we have seen since R1, especially with accidental contact.

Compare with Percival: He jumps higher into the tackle as opposed to dipping. Same outcome though as with Byrne, accidental, forceful contact to the head with upper part of arm. You may say again that Bryne makes more attempt to wrap.

Watts = 4 games
Percival = 2 games

For very similar incidents. So you think think this is probably down to a reduction on the OTT bans in R1 and a more realistic disciplinary process.

But then Bryne gets 4 games????????? Same as Watts and twice as many as Percy?


I know people keep bring up Harry Smith, but it was clearly stated that the player he tackled manufactured his own dangerous position and it wasn't Smith putting him there. Compare with Paul Vaughan last weekend where he lifts, then dumps the player and there is a clear difference.

Yeah, no points scoring intended at all on my part either. As I said above plenty of fans are happy to accept harsh punishments for players of certain clubs and not for others and that needs to stop. I had a look on the Total RL forum earlier and it was exactly that, with most of the talk being about how disgraceful it is that Dupree didn't get a ban for hitting Lees in the face....only he didn't hit him in the face but that is ignored. The same people who didn't agree with the Watts ban are fine with this one for Byrne and so on.

I'm no fan of Leeds but Lisone was hit with a 3 game ban earlier in the season that was an absolute disgrace, the Smith one the other day was shameful (and was rightfully over turned) and so on. I don't care what shirt any player is in, I just want to see consistency and common sense. Nobody could make Byrne getting 4 games and Percival 2 make sense to me because it just doesn't. I didn't want Percival to miss more games, it seemed fair enough under the current crack down you cannot then give Byrne more than 2.

I thought it was a red but concede 4 seems a little out of kilter compared to what has gone before. 2 maybe more consistent.... but consistency isn't something we get from the disciplinary panel.

Is about what it should've been going off previous incidents IMO. I also do not have an issue with the red because that has been reasonably consistent, as long as the video ref gets enough time to intervene, which is usually via a player staying down (sometimes because they're genuinely hurt but not always. There is clearly no issue with that in this case). I just cannot go with 4 games and the big fine on top.

I still can't believe people thought it was a red card. A ref card FFS, on Good Friday in the biggest game of the regular season. A red card for that.

Half the build-up was talking about going to war, ripping in and the infamous GF fight. You know, the one that's the highest viewed piece of SL content on YouTube.

There is a big difference between living with a red card 'in the current climate' and thinking it's a red card. All being well, without ambulance chasers all over the sport, there's no way I think it's a red card but I can put up with it being one. What I can't put up with is then a guy being hit with a long ban and a big fine. The players are being battered in 3 different ways (on game day, then by being sat down and then being hit in the pocket) and the clubs, fans and the game is then missing out on seeing games between full strength teams.

The comparison with Percival is obviously a relevant one given the two red cards.

This may be red-vee tinted specs but when I look at the Percival one, he gets into a very similar position to Byrne (i.e. he's not side on looking to smash with the shoulder, he's pretty front on with right arm low and out to his side). So I don't think either are looking to deliberately lead with the shoulder for starters.

I think he sees the ball going down and almost tries to pull out of the tackle rather than completing it, with the Salford player running into him and Percival ending up bumping backwards. I guess the MRP have considered that Byrne was fully committed to an illegal tackle whilst Percival could argue he tried to pull out of a tackle after a player dropped the ball - i.e. less deliberate force in the action?

Just my take and admit it could be absolute bobbins, but that's what I see when I slow the Percy tackle down.

Either way, I think we can all probably agree that the Byrne tackle is not what 4-match bans are for.

As I said earlier mate, we all see incidents in different ways. I think the comparison with the Percival one is relevant, though, because it shows the levels of inconsistency or even incompetence. Even from your perspective (which is not as harsh as mine) there still isn't enough difference between the two to justify Byrne's being twice as bad. A revealing way to illustrate it is, according to the the disciplinary, Percy could have received 2 red cards for similar offences in that match and still only been as bad as Byrne's!

I know that's a bit of a convoluted way of looking at it but it really does show the ridiculous disparity.

You are assuming the MRP has a brain between them, that’s where your argument falls On a serious note, I understand your view. Sadly, such infringements should be determined on pov but simply on what has happened, either two or four matches for them both.

Sat with my RedVee mate watching the Salford game, at the time I said something similar about the Percival tackle. But like NK says, a 4 match ban AND a £750 fine (when the base figure is £250), stretches credibility to the limit.