No surprise whatsoever.

Lets see what "The Most Flattened Man In Super League" gets away with against Wigan...

Grade A offence carries a maximum 1 match ban (apart from in this case where we've copped an almost 2 match ban, 2 places in the league, and 1 of the vital 2 bites at the play-off cherry.... but I digress) so Hull MUST appeal - nothing to lose.

I'm certain the RFL can't "upgrade" the level of the case retrospectively once the it's been heard to a Grade B offence carrying a higher number of match bans, so the only way Hull could lose is if the fine is increased. A small price to pay to have Radford against Vella and Rovers.

Incidentally, can we appeal the fact that Bailey wasn't cited at all?

They dont even see the elbow in the video as they state it was Baileys 'forearm made unintentional contact with opponent' .

The RFL and the Disciplinary panel have yet again shown that it not what you do but who you are (or play for) when it comes to disciplinaries. What a total joke and mockery, mind you what should we expect from the idiots running (more like ruining) the game.

Once they failed to cite Bailey Radders was screwed. That's basically saying Bailey was innocent and Lee was the guilty aggressor. There is no point in appealing as basically Lee's actions were the actions of a guilty man. We can argue about why he did it but clearly the powerful ones in the know have landed the blame totally at Lee's feet.

The more I see the incident and think about it, I find it totally out of character for Lee. He can and has handled himself in the past, but I have never seen him lose it like that before. The RFL should have asked themselves why that was.

I strongly believe the rest will do him good and he will be fresh for Wire the following week when we will need him to upset the form book.

Lee's biggest fault for me was that he never finished the coward off. Maybe next time knowing what he knows now he will.

No charge.

i agree fully with you, most fans are left baffled week in, week out by decisions of the disciplinary and the refs. watch any match live or on tv and you are left in total amazement at decisions that are made. one team gets penalised for any offence , whilst the other team do the same and get a way with it.
trying to understand the disciplinary committee would take the combine minds of worlds cleverest individuals. below are two players cited this week.


Punching in 34th minute (Dobson)
Decision No charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Player reacts to tackle from opponent, throws ball at opponent but no punches, referee caution appropriate

he is charged with punching, but then it is said that he didn't punch anyone !!!


Use of forearm in 10th minute (Radford)
Decision No charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Player attempts to regain feet and play the ball, forearm makes unintentional contact with opponent, provokes opponent but no misconduct

i wont comment to much on this further to say almost everyone saw his elbow strike radford, but the committee didn't.

these decisions can been seen weekly on the rfl site.

Hang on when you face the Wire the next week very confident are you... lets put it this way playing against KR is not going to be easy for you and it will be a very tough battle, and if all our players come through this week with no injuries then the game is there for the taking.. For Rovers

Serious question, not trying to wind anyone up, but, do you think the seriousness of any matters like this are upped because they are seen live on TV ?

Because I do.

The footage is more conclusive, which again is another example of our game being played under 2 sets of rules

FWIW, i feel radders has been very harshly dealt with for this incident..
.
for those that think bailey wasn`t cited , this is from the rfl disciplinary page
..
ON/637/10
Name Ryan Bailey
Club Leeds
Shirt Number 16
Match Hull FC v Leeds
Competition Super League
Date 04/09/10
Incident considered Use of forearm in 10th minute (Radford)
Decision No charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Player attempts to regain feet and play the ball, forearm makes unintentional contact with opponent, provokes opponent but no misconduct
...........
i personally feel that bailey did this act intentionally, then their was the attempted head butt and then the fact he was being aggressive again and failed to walk away and came back to aggravate the incident again, this alone i thought should of warranted a card of the red colour.

so i do feel for radders for his harsh treatment but after seeing how our respective clubs have been treated before the rfl this year ,this decision is by no means a shock.

Me too, especially as the TV games are filmed in better quality than the non-TV games (see SLShow for examples). That said it beggars belief that the full incident appears to have been glossed over, despite what appeared to be the whole tackle/punches/brawl being put on report as it was in the Hull Rovers game.

I think that could be a good point and the RFL always like to look tough for the media. Once Bailey was no charge to answer the judiciary where always going to back up the Refs decision.

I do think that a player with no red crads in his career to date has been treated harshly, time was when a players previous was taken into account.

Still I look forward to playing Leeds away next weekend and Radders meeting Bailey again

We should appeal. The fact that even Rovers fans are posting that the punishment is unfair in the context of the maximum penalty and Radford's virtually unblemished record is definitive evidence that it's overly harsh.