patton 5 matches and £500 fine. Right decision but I'm still surprised he got more than watts

Seems harsh that.

Maybe the RL are trying to send out a message about head high tackles in particular

Lets get this decision into perspective
Patton gets a 5 game ban for a head high shot whilst the game was in full motion and he had no real time to pre meditate his actions
Where as Watts deliberately walks up to Crosby and head butts him and only gets a 3 game ban?
Maybe thoughts don't go through Watt's head very quickly but he certainly had time to change his thought process and refrain from Nutting Crosby

I suspect the fact that it wasn't a full-blooded headbutt by Watts was mitigation to its premeditation. And conversely the lack of intent by Patton was offset by the force of impact and consequences for Faraimo.

Patton fully deserves 5 matches. He intentionally smashes Faraimo in anger (fist clenched says it all) and now our player misses a game and has probably suffered some form of trauma that will have lasting effects in years to come

Watts was a fookin idiot but just sort of plants his head heavily (it wasnt a head butt) on Crosby, no ones koncked out, no one will have lasting effects - 3 matches is fair though if anything but to teach Watts a lesson

Think both are a bit harsh, saying that as stupid as Watts was, it was a harmless headbutt and didn't hurt anyone, whilst Pattons could have broke Faraimo jaw, made him go off and will put him out for at least a week.

I've have given Watts 2 and Patton 2/3

I'm sure faraimo would disagree

Given him brain damage, could have ended his career, will likely cause him long term health issues.............

He had time to clench his fist, he had time to decide whether to ignore the refs held call, he had time to decide whether to tackle round the legs or swing with a clenched fist directly to the head of a human being.
I guess you're the type that would hand a £100 fine for someone who drives their car and in full motion decides to run someone over.

the RFL specifically state that severity of injury is taken into account.
Go bother to read up on the operational rules know nowt!

2 games for that assault by Patton ... Clueless!

So, if it's a first offence and you don't have the long wrap sheet with a penalty notice like that you'd get the lower end of the penalty. For a Grade C offence it's 2-3 matches so without the previous he's have got 2 matches.
Patton got graded D, that carries a tariff of 3-5 matches. Turns out he's got previous as well so he cops the full 5 matches.

Took me a while, but now I know you are simply trolling.

The fact that Patton recklessly swings his arm into the face of Faraimo already dictates its pre meditated, unless of course Patton had never played the game before and had no idea of the rules regarding head contact.

Factor in that the referee had actually called held and was pointing to Faraimo to go back to his mark (ball carrying arm made contact with the ground), will have meant Faraimo was in a slightly relaxed position. I heard the officials call in the stands, so Patton will have heard it being only yards from the referee.

Factor in the damage caused by Patton resulting in Faraimo being lead from the field and being unavailable for at least one more game due to concussion rules, which was far worse than Watts going forehead to forehead with Crosby.

If Watts had genuinely wanted to injury an opponent with a head butt, he would have butted him on the nose or at least in the face (if you want an example of this I seem to remember an incident between Steve Hampson and Gary Freeman in a GB v NZ game in the late 80's, now that was a head butt).

I respect your opinion Dave, but 2/3 for Patton, I wholeheartedly disagree.