Totally agree Stan, I have a few good friends who are Cas fans, and they are as bemused about this whole sorry state as we are!

The wilfully reckless leg whip is your interpretation. But the video evidence is equally consistent with other interpretations, including it being an unfortunate accident. The failure of the panel to entertain this possibility, compounded by the withdrawal of the EGP, going outside the guidelines and Hudgell's allegations means it looks and feels like a stitch up. That is my interpretation.

I want to see fewer players injured, and there might be a case for making an example sometimes - but it has to be a good example, with less ambiguous evidence and more robust process.

A more robust process.....at the rfl, not when you can......spin spin spin the wheel of justice see how fast the b#stard turns.......this week avoid the 2 matches plus 2 for moral indignation from associate of the victim...oops you hit it...spin again for a free appeal...unlucky no appeal for an offence with a 2 game sentence. Random regrade of sentence means spin again......yep 4 games for a grade b ...early guilty plea.... spin again.....no early guilty plea...unlucky your out of spins. Next week......more spins ( please note Leeds and Wigan get to bring their own wheels known as the justice reform wheel which offers rehabilitation and minor fines for repeat offenders).

That seems a bit of an over-reaction. I get why Hudgell is ranting, and I suppose part of that is to bring the players together "back to the wall mentality" but he was a bit OTT in my opinion. Could have toned it down a bit and been more professional

If the bit about them inadvertently revealing that they'd pre-judged the appeal is true, then he might as well give 'em both barrels.
It's one thing'knowing' it, another actually seeing it.

I very much doubt the panel has been influenced by Powell's comments. As a coach who has just seen his captain suffer a serious injury he believes was caused by an illegal challenge, he has every right to voice his opinion. To think the panel take his, clearly biased, opinion into consideration is ludicrous.
It would be interesting to know if the panel had sight of footage that has not been made public. Both clubs will have filmed the game and this footage may be clearer, hence the certainty of two panels that the tackle was illegal. I personally don't think the Sky footage is conclusive either way and if this is the only footage used by the panel, I think the player has been hard done by.
However, if the other footage is clearer then the ban is fully justified.

It was a statement that only a lawyer could write. Strong, measured, passionate and ever so slightly thought provocative. Exactly to be expected from someone who operates in his specific line of legal practice.

Why go soft on the RFL? In these parts we all tell it as it is, non of that PC nonsense.

Somebody needs to rattle the RFL cages and hard, because their incident interpretation, their decision, the length of ban given for it and their subsequent rationale for it smacks of injustice or rough justice. They are looking to send out a signal to the rest of the league, but they have picked the wrong tackle and wrong example against which to do it. Darryl Powell's intervention and Michael Shenton's sad and unfortunate injury influenced and predetermined any initial panel review and subsequent appeal outcome. That's unfair and Neil Hudgell was right along with JP to drive this message home forcefully.

The only other footage is from the grassy knoll Boudebza was stood on with his rifle.

I'll give you a clue.....there is no other footage...none nothing.....none what so ever.

4.728515625:5