No he doesn't, he has 2 previous incidents on his record hence getting the higher of the possible number of bans.

Can't really argue with either IMO.
Sinfield got 2 games for an even more innocuous butt on Luke Dorn a few years back, throw in Watts' previous and 3's not inconsistent with that.
And although Patten's 5 games might have been deemed harsh a few years ago it's now pretty much the case that tackles that are malicious, dangerous, illegal and result in injury are likely to attract that kind of response from the RFL.

I would like to see a system where one of those games was held in reserve for the next time the teams met, as it's unfair that the offended-against team's rivals should benefit. That said, having seen Patton's performance before his dismissal you'd probably prefer that he did play. Whereas Wire might prefer it if Watts didn't.

i reckon the clenched fist was more for trying to knock the ball out of his grasp rather than knock him out, bear in mind dec's a fairly small halfback against a bloody big winger. I've seen defence for other offences in the past where they've stated smaller players have tried to be aggressive standing up against opposition forwards, that's had varying degrees of success.

Very interested to read the notes from the comittee

and here we are

Slight contradiction to say [i"provided that Mr Patton’s arm is going down in an attempt to wrap up the ball"[/i, but then later [i"The player states he was unaware of where the ball is when making the tackle" [/i

Before Id seen the verdict, The clenched fist issue is not relevant when its the inside of the elbow / bicep area which clatters Faraimo's jaw. The Still pic which is on the BBC website and this thread shows Pattons fist so far away from the ball it would be laughable to suggest its any attempt to knock the ball out.


But, I know quote the Warrington coach

"Mr Price does go onto say however that as pointed out within the still picture provided that Mr Patton’s arm is going down in an attempt to wrap up the ball and his left foot is planted on the ground."

If Pattons arm is in a downward motion, then it must have been a windmill type action to end up in the position it is.

The verdict basically concludes that Mr Prices is lying.

Fair enough Karen, I'll move him up to 4.

patton was definitely intending to give faraimo a good crack with his arm. You don't try and effect a tackle with a clenched fist

Correct there mate, I'm a Cas fan and seriously Sinfield merely brushed his forehead against Dorn's cheek more in frustration than anything else. On the other hand when you look at Lockers decapitation of Annikin you have to ask why Patton got 5. Maybe cos he doesn't play for Wigan.

Patton springs up on to his toe on the left foot and his right foot is completely off the ground a split second before that actual still photo, in other words if he was doing what Price says he's doing his feet do not leave the ground, he's a lying bstd and Patton shot is a disgrace.
Can't believe Radford is defending Patton

Radford tells it how it is, happy to have been proven wrong these last few seasons.

Exactly. I'd have been more disappointed if he'd come out and given him a serve. What's done is done and the punishment has been handed down. Time to move on.