Smith got 3 games (rightfully so) and Franklin Pele also got 3 games for his challenge on opening night and when you stack them up against challenges like that Makinson one and other accidental contacts like the Liam Byrne one on Good Friday, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me but then when you throw in the fact Hiku did the same as Smith/Pele, to Jai Field in the CC semi and faced no action whatsoever, it becomes a farce!

You can accidentally hit somebody in the head and be banned for multiple games but trying to elbow drop somebody in the head can be fair game. I'd love to see Paul Cullen or whoever challenged on how that Hiku incident was let go.

I don't think it's just a symptom of the ill thought-out chaos we are struggling with currently.

Didn't Blake Green receive a blatant blow in the face while lying on the ground in a Grand Final, which resulted in a fractured eye-socket, and no action was taken?

This is a genuine question, because something might have been done about it later, though nothing was done at the time and Wigan gained no advantage on the day.

The Disciplinary are a clown show and have been for a long time. The idea that someone like Cullen should be involved is beyond laughable given the on-field career that he had.

If that is the case then it is a poor decision, there are plenty of players who have missed a big game through suspension. I would like to think that Tommy won his appeal on merit and yes I am glad that he can say his goodbyes. Had Saints offered him the same deal as Feldt he wouldn't be going anywhere hmm.

The reasoning they gave was that no contact was made, which is why I asked the question at the time regarding Smith. Should that even come into it though? The intent is the same either way and as we're supposed to be trying to discourage deliberate attacks to the head it makes you wonder what they're thinking.

Given that we are more than happy to give new contracts to ageing players- Lomax, Walmsley, then how are you sure we haven't offered him 2 years? How do you know that Makinson hasn't asked away for a new challenge?

Why would we waste a quota spot if he wanted to stay?

I know what you're saying Zig but they definitely take these sort of things into account sometimes. Smith got the benefit pre WCC. I know the Cas player dove but I think most of us still expected a ban there.

That happened right in front of us mate and you could hear the impact. It was an horrendous attack. I said at the time that it was worse than the Ben Flower one and the damage inflicted on both players certainly bares that out. I think Westwood received a ban retrospectively but how he wasn't sent off is completely unfathomable.

Westwood got 2 games IIRC, which funnily enough ruled him out of 2 England friendlies ahead of the 2013 RLWC and made him available for the opener against Australia in Cardiff.

If the ONLY thing we could get right in our game was consistency from the refs and the judiciary, we'd be in a 50 times better place than we are now.

Almost a poor decision as letting Harry smith play in the WCC

I agree.

Smith should have been banned for SL games but banning him for the WCC would have made as much sense as banning George Williams for the internationals at the end of last year. Domestic disciplinary issues should not lead to suspensions for international fixtures, club or country.

Totally agree. The all-licensed clowns in the Disciplinary should not have the facility to damage this country's chances of international success. They are dubious enough characters without giving them that power as well.

Just the 2 tries for Feldt this morning taking him to 20 for the season......