Probably the difference between winning and losing against rovers, and you call it madness.

He was wrong, Connor should use his brain more in situations like these as Radders said, Taylor is a completely different situation.

I can't believe the paranoia on here were people believe there is an agenda against Hull.
The club will be in receipt of all the facts regarding the offences and had there been a case to appeal I firmly believe we would have.
The conspiracy theorists on here can clearly continue with they're own hypotheses.

I'm not suffering from paranoia as I think Connor deserved the ban if he was abusive towards the ref, however after watching the game live and seeing the so tackles several times on the tv, Hull FC and Taylor have every reason to appeal as there is nothing in either of them. When Rovers fans are actually saying its b0ll0x then something really must be wrong.

If you saw the Dan Sarginson one the night after when he was tackled by a Leeds player (can't remember who) but he also got injured in very much the same way as Clark.
So the next round of SL if the incidenst that Taylor has been banned for then I expect to see at least half dozen suspensions as you see this happen in nearly every set. Its just unfortunate that Clark suffered an injury, and in all honesty nothing would have been called had he not been injured.

That is what really irks me and why I getting more and more disillusioned with the sport is the fact nothing is consistent. Players gob off to the ref (Chris Hill perfect example) and no action is taken, thats the frustration and why some believe there's a vendetta. I do think though that the majority of decisions tend to be much more lenient for the top clubs then both ourselves and our near neighbours who do seem to suffer stiffer penalties.

For once, I couldn't agree more.

According to cas's physio, “Mitch Clark sustained an MCL injury in his first tackle of the game on Thursday. He’s been to see the surgeon today and the good news is that he doesn’t require surgery, but he will be out for around eight to 10 weeks.”

I can't see the rfl reducing the ban for that incident, even if it was accidental.

.What is reported in HDM is not necessarily correct. In any case if Connor swore at the ref it was not a reasonable appeal and Radford admitted it was made in desperation. You are comparing white with black in your reference to Hill. If he said what you say he said he did not swear at the ref.

I recognise that you are upset about the severity of a three match ban to your only SL standard prop but don't let the situation make you lose your hold on reality.

Here we all are again arguing about the disciplinary procedures.

The thing is the paranoia, conspiracy theories and even outrage will always be there because the system isn't transparent enough and so for me, the average Joe who supports his team, is immediately lead towards shouting injustice!!!

How is the panel put together each week, who decides who is on it, how do you get on it, who advices them, have any of them refereeing qualifications ? Which video are they using? Why isn't the video available with the sentence, so we can all see what they have based their decision on.

Its all closed doors and smoke and mirrors really. Some of that information might be available somewhere, I'm sure it is but to the average fan it needs to be more clear. The RFL don't help either. In 2017 we had a player suspended by a panel that included a match commissioner who was an ex Rovers chairman. I'm sure he's impartial but such unthinking panel selections do tend to send hares running because justice should not just be done but be seen to be done.

I guess we appealed Connors because it was hearsay with probably the only real witness the referee who is the one it was directed at and who could be offended by it so why didn't he send Connor off? He deemed 10 minutes sufficient. For whatever reason the Club didn't see any point in appealing the Taylor one's and that's fair enough I guess!

Just my opinion of course!

But we're not discussing Connor, any other player or game so everything has to been taken on its own merits as a stand alone case.
Knowing how important Taylor is to the team and how poor our pack is, do you not think that if the club felt they had a credible cause to appeal they would?
The panel consists of so called experts and ex players. I'm not saying I'm happy with the outcome but I think they'd know more than the lay person who studies it on a Sky replay.
This is were the paranoia and hyperbole ramps up as it's poor old Hull, they Rfl don't like us. It's a total nonsense.

There's no need to be disillusioned with the sport as that's the product on the field.
The business behind the scenes we have no knowledge or control over so why worry and let it spoil your enjoyment of the greatest game.

Anyway our forwards are all rubbish and too lightweight, Taylor apart.
( back on thread )

Sorry Tag, your out of my dream team, it seems there is no stay of execution.

Powell has blamed Taylor's tackle "100% for putting Mitch Clarke out of the game for 8 weeks" Also said Taylor's action on McShane was "very naughty"

I would need to see it again (anyone know anywhere where I can?), but as I have already said, if the club thought they were hard done to they would be appealing. The fact that they haven't tells you that they know he is guilty.

I think people often complain about players being done for this sort of thing because they don't understand what is actually happening. If someone gets hit in the head then it's obvious to everyone. If pressure is applied to joints in a tackle, it's often difficult to pick up. But it doesn't make it any less s***house.

The point is dissent is dissent. It should be punishable accross the board not just on swear words.

I'd hazard a guess Brough didnt say anything less to what Hill has said yet he has found himself in the bin twice.

Swearing is a ban and dangerous contact is a ban. I dont mind that, I mind bans only applying as and when though.

Dissent is not dissent. There are levels and they are dealt with differently. Mild dissent is often just punished by advancing a penalty by 10 yards. Sometimes there is 10 minutes in the sin bin, a player can be given a red card. As in Connors case a match can be missed.

Previous history can play a part and might be the reason in Brough's case. Also in Connor's as he is always mouthy.

You are looking at things too simplistically.

As Keith says, there are different types of dissent. All players are allowed to question a decision that they disagree with so long as they do it respectfully. In fact I encourage it, good communication between the ref and players helps understanding and keeps the game flowing.

Then you get times where a player might say "come on ref you're joking aren't you?" Or words to that effect. There isn't anything particularly disrespectful about it, and certainly nothing offensive, but it could be seen as undermining their authority, and the ref will blow a penalty or tack on an extra 10 metres at their discretion.

Then you get to what Connor allegedly did, swearing at the ref, insulting him, questioning if he is fit to do the job. I would expect a ban for any offence like that.

Then top of the tree is doing what our very own Matty Dawson Jones got sent off for last year. Calling the ref a f****** cheating b******. How many games did he get for that?