I can't disagree with the arguements and comparisons that are being made about the lack of consistency between how Acton and Bird have been treated.

I assume the RFL are happy that the current precedent on kneck-breaker tackles is only 3 matches - some coaches would be happy with employing that tactic if it secures their SL existence in the short term.

Acton' s nine matches were warranted, but his was increased on appeal whereas Bird's was reduced. That's what is inconsistent.

That was for kicking it off again after been sent off.I was right in front of the original tackle and it seemed totally innocuous.

Well, Wikipedia reckons he's done just about everything else in his career. However, on checking I don't think he was awarded a heritage number, for having represented the first team. Maybe he just played for the reserves?

Bloody hell. If that we're Fax I'd be peeved a tad. Unbelievable.

To be fair regarding the Manu incident, he got two 5 match bans IIRC, one for the original incident and the other for having a couple more goes afterwards. There was plenty of build-up in that and previous games that probably should have been dealt with differently, but the ban for the incident in isolation was probably correct.

Back to Greg Bird, whether 4 games, 5 or 6 or more is correct, the main injustice was that the ref failed to deal with it properly on the day. The ban confirms that a red card should have been shown rather than a yellow, and it's not exactly as if there was any subtlety in the incident that means that the officials (between them at least) shouldn't have had a clear view of what happened.