Yes and No! The guidelines have three definitions of classifying offences, that is (from worst to best, if you get my meaning) Intentional, Reckless or Careless, so no you don't have to have intent to be found guilty but often offence that are classed as Careless by definition don't have any intent but the action of the player was still against the laws of the game.

You should read them actually, not a long read and give a great insight into how the system works. If more people actual understood the guidelines maybe they would not be so quick to think they are biased against them or favour anyone else.

rlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/On%20Field%20Compliance%20Sentencing%20Guidelines%202010%20-%20Final.pdfrl

Like I said, the more obvious criticism being made by many is that the original decision could be the 'incorrect' one, given that two of the three disciplinary panel members were ex-Wigan coaches!

That all said, at the end of the day the three blokes on the disciplinary panel had a different view than the three blokes on the appeal panel! That does not mean that the opinion of one panel or person on that panel is less valid than the others, just that they have a different view. As all the available members of the committees rotate around both the discpilianry & appeal panels on a rota produced in advance it could quite easily have been the other way around and the appeals panel could have been the three same blokes on the original panel and they could have up'ed Buderus ban from a fine to a suspension! Would this be viewed by Wakey fans differently then? Or would you say the exact opposite, clearly the disciplinary panel got it wrong and the appeals panels got it right.... because that fits with your opinion???

It is just the system we have and I don't think there is much wrong with it... you are allowed to have a different opinion to them and they often have different opinions amongst themselves but they sit on the panels and you don't... that is about it really!

that's the way I saw it, he paid a high price being sent off earlier, I would of had them both cooling off in the sin bin,
their excuse was that only one punch landed which is laughable as the intent was there to take his head clean off,

I would love to see the different camera angle in which shows Buderus hadn't lifted him above the horizontal position intentionally or not

there is one thing you cant have star players missing in the high profile games

so a spear didn't deserve a ban..clown..looks like mcguire got devine retribution for his professional foul then!
at least wigan layed your "want to go home boy" down after moving him above the horizontal!
why defend a spear????

Which is precisely what makes this whole incident such a farce.

The game was televised. How many camera angles can there be to review? How the hell can you miss one? If the disciplinary panel are in a position to fine a man part of his wages, or suspend him from performing his job, they should at least have the courtesy to review all the available evidence at the time before coming to a decision on the case. And yes, thankfully there is an appeals panel, but for them to have to offer the explanation that they viewed the incident from another angle in order to amend the original decision makes the whole process appear ridiculous, or at best sloppy.