And not half so scary as Sean Long's hair!!!

Fielden wasn't doing anything to pevent Carvell playing the ball.

If Carvell stands up on the mark he has no problem playing the ball.

Nothing wrong with what Fielden did and when you are 1 ft from your own line the last thing you do is step back and give the attacker more ground.

Was definately no penalty and led to a try - bad decision.

I've just watched it again. The replay clearly shows that the penalty is actually given whilst Carvell is still on the ground, and by the time he stands up (much less than 1m forward) the ref has blown up.

Fielden does not clear the ruck quickly enough. He is trying to win the wrestle, and he gives a penalty. I had last seen it a couple of days ago when I first commented on this, however just watching it again now, it was 100% clear. Carvell doesn't even get to play the ball.

I know the commentators aren't exactly the most knowledgable, but Stevo certainly agreed it was a penalty and stated it was quite clear that Fielden didn't clear the ruck.

one match ban for raising the knee but found not guilty for abusive language

- cant they lip read

They are complete jokers.

Bent B'stards

Yea they can, but Fielden claimed it was aimed at an opponent and not the ref.
A blaitant lie but hard to prove I would have thought.

A ban for him raising the knee has been coming for a while on the back of a couple of warnings.

As much as he's not been at his best whilst at Wigan and he did get man handled on Friday he'll still be quite a big loss.

Fieldens 'decent' form is better then most props 'good' form.

It's probably not much use trying to reason - but as has been pointed out Carvell didn't move off the mark because he wasn't even stood up. Fielden held him done for a long period which was almost enough for a penalty in itself, and then kneeled right in front of him. In my opinion the penalty was harsh but given Fielden made no effort to get out of the way, and was not being held back by Carvell, it's hard to argue against it. Every week in Super League penalties are given where players do not make an effort to clear the play the ball, and acting like a petulent child afterwards doesn't make it a wrong decision.
The lack of a charge for foul language is a strange one.

Club might be appealing the ban yet.

It's like the old song. If the right one don't get you then the left one will.
He was going to get done for one of the offences.