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.

I'll repeat what I said earlier (and ok he will be 33 come the season start) Their fans are really sad he's leaving, that's a good sign for me.

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.

His try scoring record in a much superior comp is superb. Him and Sailor are two very good additions so far.

He's a good player Feldt and causes problems for teams whenever I watch him. The age is a worry and the wing position in general has turned in to a problem area for Saints but he should solve one side for a couple of years. It does feel a bit like kicking the can down the road and within the next couple of years they'll need to find 2 starting wingers from somewhere. I would've thought they'd have got Tom Davies. I get HKR must've offered good wages but I doubt he'll be on more than Feldt will be on at Saints and with Davies you get a winger who could be around for 6 or 7 years.

He looks a good pickup from the showreel clips. I suppose the question is "will he stay at that level for the next 2 years". If so, then Saints have a good one. If not, they have another problem similar to the ones they already have. Time will tell.

It seems like we are in advanced negotiations with Lewis Murphy...

And Dagnall will be the starting winger in a couple of years (England Academy winger/centre) who like a few of the others is not quite ready (as shown in our last few performances where it has literally been men against boys)

I also think signing a 33 year old winger is very different from a 33 year old forward and a 33 year old now is very different from a 33 year old 20 years ago with the advancements in sport science.

Look at Ryan Hall still killing it at what is he, 36?

If Saints get Murphy in addition to Feldt, then that will go a long way to fixing those wing problems. Tough to say how Murphy has come back from that bad injury last year, with him not playing first grade but he looked a real talent.

Appreciate the thought you've given to this.

I'm not denying that they've been put in an difficult position by all these opportunist claims for damages (I'm not sure when these court cases will actually be heard, but it's certainly dragging on). But when it comes to punishment afterwards, they really need to start discerning between accidental contact and deliberate.

Just parking the Tommy Makinson example as there seem to be wildly differing views on that one, we're all in agreement that there have been a number of ridiculously OTT suspensions passed this season. And that's a real danger in a high-speed, heavy collision sport like ours. If they continue with this, the very nature of our game is under threat, which, given that it apparently isn't in Australia, could see the UK finishing up with a sport that is rugby league in name only.

One thing that is within our power is to sort out this sentencing process. Some referees are behaving as if red cards are a new toy, but if we can't do anything about that because the insurance people demand it, we can at least adopt a more measured approach when it comes to further action. The mere fact that no one's suggesting players get suspended for accidental head clashes indicates an awareness that accidents happen.

If nothing else, they need to take a far less cavalier approach to red card incidents, and go through the video thoroughly afterwards to ensure that that the head contact was, firstly, real, and secondly, intentional. I genuinely don't believe they're doing that at present.

Agree with this mate. The problem lies in the inconsistencies. I've just watched the Paul Wellens post match presser and his views on the Makinson tackle are almost identical to the ones I've expressed here: don't particularly like it but it's the way the game is and we have to deal with it. However it's too inconsistent.

I think there's very much a 'trying to discourage serial offenders' element to this. It's a bit of a cack-handed approach that they're taking but it's working to some degree. They're not accepting the 'I can't do anything about it' defence which is fair enough. As I said, Mata'utia and Sironen have managed to adjust their style adequately for example.

I'm willing to bet that any one of us could go through every team and quite easily pick out the players most likely to put in a headshot. There's a reason Harvard rarely, if ever hits high, but, say, Ellis or Byrne regularly do. Same with Wardle as opposed to Keighran in the backs. I don't think Wardle or Harvard play a lesser version of the game as is being made out regarding all these cards and bans. Tommy wouldn't be playing a lesser version of the game by not staying bolt upright and jumping into the tackle.

I don't think the new rules need to be the death knell for the sport. We just need players who are seemingly unable to get the message to adapt and for the game to police it properly. That's surely not too much to ask, is it?

Highly doubt the “insurance companies” have insisted on a disciplinary panel at all, you’ve just made that up.

They will have just said that we need to change the rules and cut down on head contacts, how that’s done is up to the RFL