Maybe you should try supporting a big club. I don't get the feeling the game's corrupt from up here on my ivory tower - come and join us.

Not read anything in this thread, but I do have to say, I am extremely concerned that this was only a 1 game ban.

I understand all the mitigating evidence. Especially the fact that he was send from the field in the first half (which when we see people staying on the field and getting 2-3 game bans quite regularly shows that being sent off is actually worse than a 2-3 game ban). But that was clearly worth more than 1 game. I thought 2 games would have been acceptable.

From a player welfare point of view it does not look great. I can see that it is small margins from being a good tackle, and it isn't like he is dropping someone on their neck, but he did hit him high and with a flying arm.

From a club view I am obviously happy, but not sure I agree with it from the sports point of view.

I just think the RFL are simply inviting criticism with the way they do things. Why bother announcing a Grade C which carries 2-3 games if they are then going to consider these "mitigating factors." Why not consider the factors and then decide on a Grade? At least that way they won't be seen to be backing down and changing their minds. They really don't help themselves at all.

The backlash is inevitable but I can assure people this isn't anything to do with me being a Saints fan. I just don't understand their methods and I feel they could avoid a lot of the criticism by doing things differently.

I do tend to agree. I feel they should have phrased it as downgrading from a C to a B, which it really was...careless rather than reckless. Then the mitigating factors simply lead to the minimum for that grade. Much less controversial.

why would I want to support a bigger club, you don't get it do you, I was born half a mile from Wakefield's ground, I've lived in Wakefield area all my life its not all about success you are what you are I could of been a fev fan but chose to support Wakefield maybe because my father did, I played for the colts back in the seventies breaking my ankle and missing the 79 final to go watch my team, after all those years we end up have one of the best seasons in the cup and league after being at the bottom for so long, would I swap no way I'll go down with the sinking ship thank you with my head held high proud that I stood by my club and not move just for glory

about what?

further picture doing the rounds on FB shows a clear elbow to a players face that wasn't seen by the official before he was sent off yes from a players welfare it doesn't look good at all

You just said you were quitting the sport as it's corrupt! Now you're going down with the "sinking ship." I get that a big club getting a fair decision is creating an emotional reaction in you, but you really should take a step back and look at what you're typing.

FWIW, I've watched Wigan win nine Challenge cups, you should give us a try. Come to Donny to watch Lockers and co. compete in a big match.

I agree totally on what your saying, I wasn't there to watch it and from what I see is a flying arm that was swung out while being unbalanced and catching him squarely across the neck, while he might not wanted to do this he certainly didn't want him passing him and made the lunge, you can't grade something then degrade at a later date as you've already given the grade

quitting the sport getting that way yes, as going down with a sinking ship well the clubs been bailing out now for years, if you saw whaat we have to put up with you'd find your self feeling the same way

Your crowds will be dropping then , are your lot still boycotting all the Childs games was 2 sin bins and a sending off not enough for you

they haven't been good for years but then tickets was handed out like sweets

The sport's corrupt, biased against the nothing clubs!

ok go play on your own

A very sensible post, I have to agree. I think the issue is one panel set the initial charge where the player concerned is not present and is unable to defend themselves then a different panel decides the punishment in a hearing where the player can defend themselves, in some cases resulting in a lesser charge. The system was supposed to make it more transparent but instead is breeding more controversy.

I also believe this is made worse as some believe the bigger clubs can somehow pull their weight and influence in a way the smaller clubs can't.

As I posted on the VT in this case I think the 3 matches was reduced to 2 as he pleaded guilty which is consistent across the board then reduced by a further match as he was sent off which is also consistent with previous cases. I think ending up with 1 match is lenient, I also think the diciplinary are consistanly lenient and should be handing out larger bans in general.