No real surprise there then. Lets move on now and focus on friday, not exactly too bad having the likes of Webster stepping in to replace him is it.

We've seen it all before

I doubt very much you was at Odsal Hutchie so cut out the wind ups.
GML.

With regards to the ban of Chev walker been upheld,
the inconsistencies that were evident last year by the RFL show no signs of receeding, it realy is about time they got their house in order and at least try to show some consistency when punishuing players for so called bad tackles.
It will be interesting to see what punishments are given out when Leeds or st Helens players are up in front of the pannel.
Once again the RFL at red hall have shown themselves to be the laughing stock of sport.
Rugby league, is the best sport in the world but unfortunately its still run by muppets,

Although Chev has looked good so far this season this is by no means a big problem.
Who can complain at having to play Jake Webster?

Hull KR have certainly made huge strides when one GB international is replaced by a NZ international with a cracking top class local lad putting pressure on both of them for a starting berth.

Courtesy of rlGazemousrl:

Percentage of games banned for in relation to players referred to disciplinary panel:

Wakefield - 4 times referred, 8 matches banned: 200%
Castleford - 5 times referred, 8 matches banned: 160%
Wigan - 12 times referred, 12 matches banned: 100%
St Helens - 3 times referred, 3 matches banned: 100%
Quins - 9 times referred, 8 matches banned: 89%
Catalans - 9 times referred, 8 matches banned: 89%
Hudds - 7 times referred, 6 matches banned: 86%
Warrington - 10 times referred, 8 matches banned: 80%
Leeds - 8 times referred, 5 matches banned: 63%
Bradford - 5 times referred, 3 matches banned: 60%
Hull KR - 11 times referred, 4 matches banned: 36%
Hull FC - 2 times referred, 0 matches banned: 0%

On what grounds was the appeal?

Was their new evidence rovers could have put forward that was not considered first time around or did they simply not like the original decision. If its the latter, count yourselves lucky the ban was not extended.

A wasted vote I reckon.