If Long got 5 games, and we won the next 5 with Obst having a starring role in them all, Agar would still put long straight back in at 7 when available.

I agree, but they can only do him for intent, his elbow never connected.

If he changes his name to Tomkins would the ban be reduced to 2 matches?

Nah mate, Bailey's the way to go with this sort of thing.

As long as he doesn't try Street or he'll get an additional 8 for the intent!

I agree too. He should get 3 games for it as it didn't connect. If it did connect it would have been the 5 and possibly a big fine.

2 should be enough he was fired up and never been sent off so good record for me

trouble is He's been charged with something that carries a minium of 3, which is entirely in keeping, and consistent with previous RFL charging guidelines for similar offences carried out by the the RFL poster boys of the moment. Allegedly.

Can't believe you're commenting about unrelated disciplinary offences on a thread about long

Is "Inconsistent" Child in charge of the panel?

Whilst I agree this thing needs stamping out the game completely, Tomkins was sent off for the same thing (and he connected) against us and only get two match ban.

So anything other then that is a disgrace IMO.

By that I don't mean the ban is too harsh I mean the fact the RFL seem to pick and choose who to make an example of.

]

my thoughts exactly

Having watched the highlights at the Hull website, you can't really see what Long did, but if he is guilty he deserves a ban that is consistent with the RFL disciplinary, so 2 games should be the most.

Aspinwall was very lucky not to get a red card for his late high shot on Long.

I don’t think Long will be that missed as we have Obst and Williams to come in.

I guess Long's defence will refer to the fact that he didn't make contact. He might well claim bad technique rather than deliberate intent.
He might even claim that he pulled away in order to avoid contact, but he'd probably have his fingers crossed behind his back