Just seen it. Nothing tackle, he takes his time, comes from behind, clamps the legs rather than hits through them, and they bring the attacker down in a controlled manner. If every player who did a tackle like that got picked out there would be 50 bans per week.

That said Tansey's ban for a "push" on the ref is even worse. I don't know if anyone else has seen it but Roby is running backwards straight into him and Tansey puts his hands out to stop him. Paea's ban might be a bad decision, but I don't think I've seen a worse decision than that one.

That's possibly the worst decision I've ever seen! They should be ashamed of themselves! I could look through all the weekends games and find 100 similar incidents. They have well and truly lost the plot and are ruining the game. Absolute clowns the lot of them.

Have a look at this on the HDM website. Spot the difference www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... y.html?001 One gets nothing another gets a 2 match ban. Love to know how the RFL can justify this inconsistency.

Have a look at this on the HDM website. Spot the difference www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... y.html?001 One gets nothing another gets a 2 match ban. Love to know how the RFL can justify this inconsistency.

One plays for Hull the other for Wigan

Flowers second one is dirty. No attempt to make a tackle, just drives his shoulder through. Textbook cannonball.

Think he got sin binned, would have taken that for Micky

well that's fair enough and all well and good, but will we see all players going in as third man getting a 2 game ban? thought not, especially if you are a wigan player

i don't care what the rules are as long as they are applied consistently

Where's that rule then? It happens in 90% of tackles. It's been banned below the knee in the NRL, but not here.

He should have got 6 games.

But in all seriousness it's nothing like a cannonball what so ever. I bet secretly the appeal panel thought there was nothing in it but found themselves in a tricky situation in that they either back their colleagues up or make them look like clueless fools.
I would imagine if they agreed with the first panel that they would have thrown another game at him.

As stated a few days ago the system is unfit for purpose as unfortunately it is, and always has been, unable to mete out punishments in a consistent and fair fashion. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the steady stream of evidence is that the system is essentially corrupt and bent.

Credit to Hull for publicising their obvious disgust at this contemptible joke of a procedure.

Unable = unwilling?

Agree with that. This needs to be brought further into the open. McIlorum got only 3 matches for breaking someones jaw. 2 matches for an innocuous third man tackle is insane. Welham didn't get a ban for a headbutt, so on what basis are punishments meted out?