Your feeble trolling might have been more effective if it wasn't for the fact that fans from all clubs - including some Leeds fans - agreed that the incident was worthy of a ban.

Plausible purely because it's the RFL and they're fooking stupid. How can it be 'unfair' to use Sky footage at disciplinary hearings, but 'fair' to have a video ref at some games but not others?

Kosh.

That is not trolling (well maybe the victim bit ) If you look on the Leeds board I've maintained a similar view since it happened. He made no contact with Manu's eyes.

Just because the majority believe something doesn't make it true.

I'm genuinely glad the disciplinary committee don't take on board all the one eyed views on these boards.

Had he raked his eyes, yes, throw the book, but he didn't

Surprise, surprise, Leeds fan in downplaying Leeds player face-grabbing shocker. It's fine. Will be used as motivational video for the return fixture. Players like Lynch who play hard and with integrity will no doubt put their shoulder in that bit harder.

Disgusting, beggars belief it really does

The RFL really are a joke!

Evidence is evidence, whether it's Sky's proof that a try should be given or proof that foul play has gone on. How can they distinguish between Sky video evidence (only available at some games) to help decide with reffing decisions and not use Sky video evidence (only available at some games) to help decide disciplinary verdicts?

I do believe it is possible to for one player to privately prosecute another for assault during matches. You can bet their lawyers would be using Sky evidence for this.

The intent was there. It's pure good fortune on Manu's part that he didn't make contact with the eyes. We see this type of verdict all too often from the RFL. Does somebody have to be severely injured/blinded in order for them to take action? They will never stamp out this type of behaviour while taking this weak & inconsistent stance.

I thought the verdict on Hock was your hand should not have been in contact with the face ? some-thing along those line, think Wormy posted it a day or so ago.

rlIt's here, Bet.rl

"The Committee accept that the action was not a deliberate attempt to gouge the opponent’s eyes. However the committee feel that the player had no justifiable reason to place his hands in his opponents face. The panel believe the player's actions were reckless and contact was certainly made with the eyes of the opponent. The committee are of the opinion that this had the potential to cause serious injury to the opponent. The panel add that you needlessly struck your opponent after the initial incident. Whilst the committee take into account the guilty plea, they believe that a 4 match suspension for reckless gouging and a 1 match suspension for punching is in order."

Virtually the same. Groped the face with no justifiable reason, then struck him again. You can tell Manu's eyes were contacted because he was blinking like an octogenarian in a brothel.

They really are an embarrassment! If I were Manu I would appeal.

So by your reckoning...

Every hand grabbing the face is an attempt to gouge eyes.

Therefore:

Every high tackle is an attempt to knock someone out.

Every late challenge is an attempt to permanently injure someone.

Every tackle above the horizontal is an attempt to break someone's neck.

There is no evidence and you're seeing something which as much as you hate to admit it, just isn't there.

Yes, I understand Manu's reaction. Totally. But if every time a rugby player reacted badly to something they perceived had happened a 10 game ban was given out, then no one would be playing

The difference being, he made no contact with the eyes