Some very good points Bill Mania. Hidden agendas etc can spring to mind.

They don't pay bills

Exactly, player safety comes first everything else is a distant second.

It's not often I agree with a bulls fan......
....so I won't!

he's had his ban downgraded to 3 games

From the RFL's twitter
"Greg Bird pleaded guilty to the Dangerous Throw charge but challenged the grading. The Independent Operational Rules Tribunal agreed and changed to Grade C. The Ban was reduced from 4 games to 3. The £300 fine remains"

back for the MPG then

Would we expect any less? What an absolute joke the RFL are - a seriously unfunny one.

Joke deision

Nothing surprises me with the RFL, its way of working, and its CEO anymore. Great game, but has become a shambles.Making Sepp Blatter and his cronies look competent angels!!!

Unbelievable.....he should have got 6 games.

Utter bollox!

Disciplinary process not worth the paper it's written on.
Typical RFL total joke. Different rules for SL Clubs especially when they are in danger of relegation.

Hmm.. Let me have a think about that one.

There also appear to be different rules applying to different SL clubs.

Jamie Acton got [uNINE [/umatches for lifting up an apparently concussed Greg Bird (yes, the same one!) in Perpignan. I say 'apparently' concussed, because it turned out that he wasn't. Coincidentally, Leigh scrum half Ben Reynolds was injured (broken nose) in that seemingly reckless, high, late challenge by Bird, which had 'apparently' concussed Bird.

Acton deserved suspending, because Bird could have been injured, and his actions could have had serious consequences. But [uNINE [/u matches, when the player wasn't injured? Acton/Leigh appealed, and the ban was increased to [uFOUR MONTHS[/u (effectively [u ELEVEN [/umatches - including a potential £1 Million game, that he would have been available for, on the nine match ban!) Ironically, Bird's suspension for a highly dangerous challenge, is [uREDUCED[/u on appeal, so that he would be available for that £1 Million game.

By the way, I also have sympathy for your statement about Championship clubs receiving heavier suspensions. Obviously the RFL consider players from those clubs punch harder, tackle harder, trip more violently etc than SL players!!

It's a strange one, because you could argue that the 'misdemeanours' of SL players are seen by a wider audience, (by SKY & BBC viewers and larger crowds) than those of Championship clubs. Therefore the actions of SL players are bringing the game into greater disrepute, than those of Championship players. Of course, you also could argue that the actions of the RFL bring the Sport into greater disrepute, than the actions of any of those players, at any level!!

Depends if you are one of the favored clubs of course

It also depends whether the SL Team is in our illustrious CEO' s remit of expanding the game to whichever country can come up with the cash. The M62 corridor and it's teams do not mean much now unless you are one of the favoured few. Agree Acton was harshly punished. But why should Bird's suspension be reduced for what was potentially a very dangerous throw. The bottom line is that the RFL is not fit for purpose.

Acton wasn't harshly punished,you don't pull injured players off the ground it could have paralysed him for all he knew.

Acton was an idiot and I fully agree that his action was highly dangerous. Acton maintains that he knew that Bird wasn't badly injured, but of course he would say that!

My point is that nine matches may have been fair punishment, or not - but to increase it on appeal? Could Bird's awful tackle on Ben Heaton, not have left him paralysed? And do you feel that four matches, then reduced to three, was a reasonable punishment? How do you reckon Bird's "tackle" compared with Acton's stupidity? I'd have said that, if Acton's 'crime' was worth eleven matches, setting a benchmark for players with 'previous', then Bird's was worth more than three.

Without delving too far into paranoia, we also 'suffered' from the Tony Gigot farce this season. He quite rightly (IMO) was suspended for two years, for his astonishing reaction to a drug tester, only to have the ban, equally astonishingly, lifted during the week before we played Catalans. He went on to star in that game, almost as though he had been training with the team for weeks, rather than having been banned from all contact with them!

Needless to say, the suspension was re-imposed, after we had played them! I wonder if his 're-appeal' will be heard before the MPG?

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.

Hadn't realised Jessie Ventura was a Leyther !

Makes Manu's 10 game ban seem even more ridiculous. Can't remember who were we playing that day ?

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.