No he hasn't. The 2-3 game range is merely a "recommended" tariff and not a requirement. He could quite as easily got a 1 game or 4 game ban yesterday.

Hope they stick an extra match on for it being a frivolous appeal and he misses the Challenge Cup Final. They won't, of course, but it'd be sweet all the same. Can't believe he even tried pleading not guilty in the first place - their supposed case for the defence sounds so far removed from the reality of the hit it's ridiculous.

www.therhinos.co.uk/news/14587.php Appeal....

www.therhinos.co.uk/news/14587.php Appeal....

Thats news to me might I ask where you got these "facts" from ????

Care to explain (with reasons please if possible) why the appeal would be frivolous ?????

Because if there's any consistency with disciplinary sanctions - which, let's be honest, we know there's not, so you may have a point - then Ablett's hit on Tomkins was clear as day and was worse than Coley's at Catalans last month for which he was given two matches. Admittedly, Coley had 'previous' on his record which worked against him - I understand Ablett doesn't - but that shouldn't mitigate the worst challenge I've seen in a Wigan match this season. It was reckless, shouldn't be defended, and a three-match ban is totally in line with the offence and should be taken as such, not least because he (wrongly) wasn't sent off in the match it actually happened in.

I fail to see on what grounds an appeal is justified. On the basis that he's not guilty of reckless play? Or on the basis that three matches is too many? On both accounts, I think he's p*ssing in the wind, so it's a frivolous appeal for me.

O'Laughlin on Robinson was just as bad, but he got away with it.

Except Lockers didn't smash Robinson in the face, but in his chest, so move along.

Ablett should expect another game added now for the appeal, just as happened with Coley previously. No remorse from a man that could have caused a devastating injury (intentional or not).

Maybe the RFL website should have been your first port of call before enlightening us all with your "facts"

Thanks for that at least its a considered approach.

I tend to disagree with you on all counts but then I would wouldnt I.

If it was reckless then his defence I gather was....

The charge is reckless use of the forearm. The definition of that is that it is deliberate. There is no malice and no intent involved in this tackle. This was a collision at high speed towards an airborne ball. Ablett was entitled to make contact, Ablett was not late and the issue is whether he led deliberately with his forearm and the club would state that he did not. The club do admit that contact was made with the head of the opponent but this was accidental.

I would imagine that his appeal is based on the severity of the punishment ie the maximum prescribed for the offence of recklessness, given his previous exemplary record which they seem to have failed to take into account IMHO.

The defence quoted appears to be suggesting that reckless = intentional when, in fact, it does not. The RFL punishment guidelines actually go further to state:

"In showing that a person has acted recklessly the Compliance Manager need not show that the person intended or wished for a particular result to occur."

Had the charge been for deliberate use of the forearm then it would be a different matter as deliberate does mean intentional.