Completely predictable. I'm not one for agendas but given that in the past month we've had Flower, O'Loughlin and now Tautai receiving discretionary downgradings of offences in the game's biggest club at the business end of the season, you do do have to wonder.

It is what it is. With a bit of luck it'll create a siege mentality for us.

Tbh think they have done you a favour Tautai is a liability and will get you plenty of penalties not withstanding how much he loses the ball.

What it now means, is that they will probably go with Tautai and 'the wrecking ball' off the bench. Having both of those on at the same time, we should be looking at hitting them with quick play the balls and scoots from the backs and Houghton. They will be penalty machines, and liabilities with good footwork at the line

This is a brilliant result for us IMO. Tautai is a complete liability. He is worth several penalties and knock ons and really isn't that good. I was gutted he got 2 matches so more than happy with this result!

You watch, he'll have the game of his life now!!!

Only surprise is that Charnley's decision stood.

To be honest why should we be surprised?

The RFL with this decision to reduce the ban for Tautai just smacks of bending the rules to suit Wigan. With O'Loughlin committing what the panel deemed a a tackle that would normally receive a more severe sanction he gets away with a very minor 1 game due to A) He was sent off B) Pleaded guilty C) His apparent exemplary disciplinary record. Ok so they are the reasons given which still are highly questionable as to only getting a 1 game ban.

So we have another example with Tautai who A) Pleads not guilty B) Does not have an exemplary record but yet still manges to have a ban reduced to 1 game for a tackle that is outlawed in the game!!

So how the hell does this work? Its just a farce and makes the RFL a joke.

It is a very dangerous precident the RFL have set with these two decisions as there is always mitigating circumstances for poorly timed tackles but it only seems to apply to one club.

The only surprise is that Charnleys ban remains at two but then again that was for touching the official but hey carry out an offence that could seriously injure a player you only get one game.

Details of the appeal here.....

tackle, makes dangerous contact (either direct or indirect) with the supporting
leg or legs of an attacking player who has been held in the tackle by a
defender(s), and who is deemed to be in a vulnerable position, in a way that
involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player. Grade - B '"

The

"it is difficult to see what other action he could have taken to avoid contact with the left leg of the opponent." as part of the appeal request is very odd.

Perhaps "not tackling him that way" or "sucking it up and taking the 2 games"?

The sooner that tackle is monitored by all the match officials and penalised with a sinbinning and at least a 1 match automatic ban (no EGP) the sooner players will stop doing it.

The appeals process is, like the rest of the RFL disciplinary process, a crock of shoite. IMO, if an appeal is unsuccessful, the player should automatically get an extra game's ban. That would stop speculative appeals like these. Was stuart fielden involved on the panel again by any chance?

I fairly sure that's what use to happen with failed appeals . Don't know when this was changed .

Quote: Jake the Peg "The appeals process is, like the rest of the RFL disciplinary process, a crock of shoite. IMO, if an appeal is unsuccessful, the player should automatically get an extra game's ban. That would stop speculative appeals like these. Was stuart fielden involved on the panel again by any chance?'" I guess you thought the same when Tickle had a 2 match ban reduced to 1, which he then served missing a 9s match www.hullfc.com/news/2009-09-02-t ... face-wigan

Quote: Jake the Peg "The appeals process is, like the rest of the RFL disciplinary process, a crock of shoite. IMO, if an appeal is unsuccessful, the player should automatically get an extra game's ban. That would stop speculative appeals like these. Was stuart fielden involved on the panel again by any chance?'" I guess you thought the same when Tickle had a 2 match ban reduced to 1, which he then served missing a 9s match www.hullfc.com/news/2009-09-02-t ... face-wigan

"The appeals process is a crock of shoite".

Do keep up, dullard.

Your attention span seems to be lacking, there's more than one sentence in the post.

I knew everyone from wiggin was dumb but I think we've found the town idiot here