Exactly its a joke as the officials and RFL Disciplinary just aren't even handed nor consistent the only consistency they have is in inconsistency.

Reckon Gale will be given at least 8 games as a example despite his previous good record which only seems to count if you play for St's, Leeds or Wigan.

Pity they don't charge Welsby with a grade C for 'behaving in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game (includes Dangerous Contact) –
Other contrary behaviour' as that was clear as day he played for the penalty and feigned being hurt.

Also the wording on Matty Lees charge in that he only had eyes on the ball so is that a defence every player can use as if so surely Gale only had eyes on the ball but only made contact at the last moment Lomax's leg suddenly appeared in front of him.

I love the James Roby one.

Charge Detail:
Player is wrapping the ball. Opponent dips head. Contact is head to arm

Like to see a player from a Yorkshire club get the same treatment.

That’s clearly not cheating if you’re a Saints player.

This what the panel said...

.

Do you know our club, as crap as we are at the moment, took around 2000 fans to Wakey, what’s that around £50,000 in the opponents coffers, we may not be the darlings of the RFL, but that’s something these biased people would do well to remember. Without both Hull clubs, rugby league would be done.

Keep up the good work Cullen.

And we all thought it would be injuries that would stop Gale & Reynolds playing a full season as a half back pairing.

I

Why do people always whinge about the RFL hating us, call the disciplinary a joke etc.

Gale's foot up / studs first action was always going to end up with a ban. Complete brainfart. Then he made it worse by pulling Lomax up. If it had been the other way around the same people would be calling for a ban.

I guess it'll be five matches plus the three so he'll be back for late April or early May - unless the RFL rule the bans run concurrently which doesn't seem likely.

They aren't biased neither are the refs and neither are the Sky commentators.

Its not that Gale is being banned that's the issue for me but the severity of the ban along with the inconsistency in the offences and the differences in punishments dished out across the teams. Its seems pretty clear to me that as a club along with our neighbours across the river we seem to fair differently than the likes of St's, Leeds and Wigan when you look at comparable offences and the subsequent penalties handed out. That's not conspiracy its an honest opinion based on what is evident in both written and video form.

Not surprised with the outcome for Gale, but it seems overly harsh. 3 in total would have been about right.

The Swift incident he wasn't stationary, he deliberately cut across - if Lees had have just run into him it would have been a penalty to Saints for escorting off the ball - Saints (or more specifically, Percival) was penalised for it relentlessly at times last year, and it was no different here, except for the fact Lees took exception and pushed him.

Your car analogy doesn't work, if someone cuts across you, and instead of attempting to swerve out of the way you steered into the collision, you would rightly be at fault, but it doesnt negate the fact you were cut across in the first place ...

Irrespective to anyones thoughts on the punishment for the raised studs incident (Grade D is a little harsh to me, it could have been a grade C in my mind) I am pleased the RFL took a stance on Gale pushing the trainer out of the way and trying to pull Lomax off the ground/ not receive treatment and had a separate charge for it, was just a bit of a grubby thing to do.

and here's me thinking it was the trainer pushing Gale out of the way.