I genuinely just think they’ve pinned him based on his punch being more accurate and their guidelines are too rigid on how they will grade things and don’t allow for a subjective overlook of the ‘whole’ incident. You connect with one punch and you’re getting a longer ban then not really connecting with an elbow drop and two punches. It’s farcical but I can’t think what else it can be.

I look at that incident as a whole and say to Ellis ‘you should keep your head and just have a bit of push and shove if you like’ and because he hasn’t he cops 5 games and that’s not a concern but I would be saying to Dezaria ‘you caused it, you dropped your elbow on Ellis, you then retaliate to his punch, with two of your own and regardless of them connecting you’re getting at least the same’ (and if anything it should be more).

As I said before the bans looked to be based on judging a boxing match, as much as it is on who did what and what their intentions were. Ellis wins on points and his reward is a longer ban.

Agree with the above.

Both should receive the same ban for the fight, but Dezaria should also be getting an additional 1-2 for dropping the elbow on a grounded opponent as well.

How do you think this works?

Is it a nod and a wink or do they say 'and obviously two extra games for playing for Wigan, who we hate.'?

Just this season I've seen Leeds and Hull fans make the same accusation. What's going on?

What is going on then? Are they just inept instead?

If you don't think there's bias in the way everything operates, then you don't know people. Regardless of if you think it's true, or not, there's a lot of anti Wigan sentiment out there and it has to (even if it's subconsciously) transfer over to things like this.

But these are the first bans we've had. We've had charges but never bans. Saints have had bans, Leeds have had bans, Warrington have had bans, Catalan have had bans...

I haven't read the explanation for the decision yet. I couldn't find it on the website.

I'll reserve judgement for now, but I definitely suspect there's some bias here.

It's worthwhile saying that I get how my message looks. It's tin foil hat territory for sure.

I just can't get away from the question tho, if it isn't bias then what is it? Nonsensical rules? Are they just inept?

Maybe it's what NK said in his good response i.e Ellis has got more weeks as he's connected Vs the other guy missing? So, like he said, it's almost a judge in a boxing match scoring it on points etc. It could very well be that's the reason.

Like with most things RL, there seems to be this unwaivering approach to look at any explanation other than the guys don't like Wigan. I can't see why it's so far fetched to suggest it might be a factor? Especially when you've discounted every other reason.

I think it's just incompetence not bias.

Ellis deserves a ban. The other guy deserves a bigger ban. Simple for everyone to see.

We’ll find out it there’s bias the next time someone gets cited for throwing a punch, if he doesn’t get the 5 games it’s biased they’ve set the standard now and have to stick to it

but hey did, one got 5 one got 3

But they’re hiding behind the retaliation argument with that, I’m referring to a straight comparison to Ellis’s punch

there is no argument, one went in with the elbow/forearm and threw punches, one threw punches....

I agree with you but they’re classing retaliation as the more serious offence to justify the decision, that’s why it’ll only be proved when another similar offence is committed

What the disciplinary seem to have ignored is the initial foul unless they feel forcibly putting a forearm into a players head whilst prone on the floor is not an offence.

Taken in isolation, Ellis threw the first punch and more/better punches overall and therefore gets a longer ban.

What baffles me is there wasn’t a separate charge for the initial foul which in the current the climate is worth at least 3 matches on its own.

Just seen the Will Pryce "tackle", if that doesn't get a higher grading than Ellis then I reckon the conspiracy theorists are correct