One of the fb RL pages, can't remember offhand which one, but it pops up on my feed does an accumulation every week, they call it "Only Bans" and as of last week HKR had the fewest with Wire just above them, if it pops up tomorrow I'll see where Saints are in the table

Fair enough mate. It wasn't a loaded question, I just wanted to know. Where would you have placed it in the range of no ban to the 4 he actually got? I know you'll be answering in light of Makinson's ban but if you can try to be impartial I'd be interested to know.

For what it's worth, my own view is that both were reds and I actually see them as very similar. I'm not totally surprised Tommy got 3 because of his previous sending off but I'm still of the opinion that's it's harsh nevertheless. Byrne's 4 was a travesty and hasn't been repeated to my knowledge.

I've had a discussion with Cruncher on here about this where I said that I understand the thinking behind the current rules. However, I think if we're going to be fairly draconian with the punishments handed out it's imperative that the disciplinary is fit for purpose and I'm not convinced it is. There is still too much of a lottery feeling about the whole process. I still can't gety head around someone putting their fingers in someone's mouth being dealt with as no proof of intention. I've literally never known anyone to accidentally put their fingers in someone else's mouth...and leave them there ... unintentionally.

On a similar note, the fines are another absolute travesty that our players who are underpaid for what they do shouldn’t have to deal with.

Lomax getting £1,500 was an absolute joke, but they shouldn’t be dealing with these fines anyway. Imagine being fined for a mistake at work. ridiculous

Reports all over Aus that Kyle Feldt is joining us. Disclaimer- RobRiches I've not started this rumour.

My thoughts are as I put on RV to save me typing twice.

On the face of it signing a 32 year old winger to replace a 32 year old winger doesn't sound like a clever decision..

However when you read the comments of the NQ fans they are sad to see him go. I think he is currently on 18 tries this season so clearly he is not a busted flush and we all know the SL is not at that standard. 1-2 years of him here helping the young lads would be a good decision and he's obviously still capable of playing at the top level.

Not sure of his record for injuries but he seems very durable and for all Tommy M is a legend and rightly so he is beginning to pick up injuries especially on his foot.

Glad i've just read this Stu. On the other Wigan forum, someone has posted that Saints are after Eckersley and Feldt, but everyone has assumed he had a typo and it was Field . I dont watch NRL so have never heard of him, but clears up the confusion ont other board

I've said all I've got to say about the ridiculous red card - until the next one is awarded, most likely at some point next weekend - but as for the ridiculous three-match ban, why is anyone surprised?

There are too many inconsequential people in the game who currently have power, and they aren't half exercising it. One of Rugby League's greatest attractions is its no-holds-barred, high-impact status. These little men in the Disciplinary are currently whittling that away simply because they can.

Years and years ago, I predicted on this forum that an immovable salary cap would see us haemorrhage players to other sports. I wasn't entirely right, most now stay in rugby league, but usually it's on the other side of the world ... and it's now become a standard arrangement that we do everything we can to develop young stars, often at great cost, and the NRL gains the benefit. I don't quote this to prove that I'm some kind of guru, but to me it was a no-brainer that this would happen ... and I feel the same way now.

We've chosen the wrong direction again. We have one of the greatest products on Earth, and yet here in the UK we seem constantly to be finding obstacles to put in our own path. We are the very definition of lions led by donkeys.

This isn't meant as anti-Wigan as they too have had some harsh bans this season. I also understand that Makinson has previous which would've influenced the ban.

However imagine showing a fan of another sport the Makinson red card and Harry Smith at Leeds and then telling them that both players received the same amount of games as a ban...

I don't think we'll win the appeal but a reduction to 2 would be nice so that he can play his last game at home for us. He deserves to go out on his own terms and not be remembered for his last home game as being sent off.

Someone put the Makinson red card on Twitter in Australia and the NRL fans could not believe it. Some didn't even think it was a yellow card, some didn't even think it was a penalty!

The two comps are so different its untrue.

The fact that Makinson, a famously affable player, who until this new era of nonsense descended on us, had few if any disciplinary issues, is even facing this possibility is in itself a disgrace.

But none of that will have been taken into consideration by these arrogant nobodies who once again have seized the opportunity to flex their little muscles.

The comps are different though Stu. Insurance companies are falling over themselves to get involved with the cash rich NRL. Over here we had 1 who was prepared to offer insurance and it came with a set of conditions that we are now forced to adhere to. Remember; no insurance, no sport.

It may be coming across on here that I'm all for the new rules. Let me make it clear. I'm not. I have spent my life supporting a sport that is now changed beyond recognition. However, I live in the real world and recognize that I still have a sport to support. If that has to involve compromise, then I'll take it as I'm not sure what the (real world) alternative is.

Incidentally the insurance companies remind me of the famous Mrs Merton interview with Debbie McGee. "Tell me insurance companies, what first attracted you to the Billion dollar NRL" (sic)

Cruncher, please don't take this as being argumentative. That's not my intention at all. I've always enjoyed your posts and, whilst I don't always agree necessarily, I can always see the merit in them. I just don't see what you're point is here.

We lose players to a much richer competition. That's simple economics. I hate it as much as you do but what's your real world solution?

You don't like the draconian punishments. Me neither. But with only 1 insurance company even prepared to consider our sport and only then with these measures in place, again what's your real world solution?

If you're just venting steam then that's fine. I get it. But if you think there's something the sport isn't doing that it should be then I'd be interested to hear it.

Where I will agree is that the disciplinary process isn't for for purpose. It's too inconsistent. However that doesn't extend to Tommy's ban. I think it's harsh but he's a serial offender who simply will not adjust his tackling technique. Mata'utia and Sironen have seemingly managed it, so why is he exempt? I like Tommy as a player and in another era I'd commend his no compromise approach but we aren't operating in another era.

I'd like nothing more than the game to remain as it was. If it did, there'd be no game at all. If you have a solution, I'd be the happiest person on this forum to hear it and I mean that genuinely.

Saints replacing a 33 year old winger with another 33 year old winger.