I'm not a fan of this early guilty plea, too many players doing it to avoid the 2 game ban by accepting a 1 match ban even though I bet the majority of them don't believe they've done wrong.

I'm referring to the whole "plead guilty or else" deal that's being run at the moment. It simply isn't worth contesting a decision if you qualify for the guaranteed minimum punishment any more.

........but he is doubtful for their game with Bradford due to "right arm massively swollen & bruised".

Quite.

They should just ban for the minimum period and clubs can appeal if they want. Saves all this pussyfooting around and wasting everyone's time, pretending there's actually a process.

I also don't agree with the process but given that the only people to have viewed the incident would be the two clubs and the MRP, then Hull must have seen something that would suggest a degree of guilt on Whiting's part. Otherwise, given his previous good record, I'm convinced they'd have put in an appearance.

Maybe the club justify the early plea knowing full well how the system works, if they have any doubt as to the legitimacy of a fair 'trail' and that there is (effectively) no independant body to assess the whole process, to take a 1 game ban when in all honesty they have no faith in the sytem itself is the right path.
I'm not saying Whiting isn't actually guilty but the early plea takes all the mitigating circumstances into account vis a vis the likely outcome if pleading a case.

When do we find out about this?

A few hours ago