Surely the charge and the grading for lifting a injured player should be the same across the board this decision does the disciplinary system no favours at all.

Matty gee , 5 games , absolutely ridiculous.

What ! The RFL disciplinary board make up who gets what. And it seems the two lower leagues always get hit harder than SL teams

Halifax are appealing the gwaze ban , hearing next Tuesday.

I should think so too. It does make it seem stranger still that SG hasn't selected Titus since the match in question though,. I can't understand the thinking behind that.

The only game he was available for was the dewsbury game , the other games he is serving his ban . Regarding the ban itself I think the rfl are going to have to distinguish between two incidents which have the same charge and grade but 5 games difference .

3 of interest on this.
1. We have (as SG said) nothing to lose against a ban of this length.
2. The glaring discrepancy between Titus G and Sione M.
3. Appeals have reduced previous ban lengths but only when SL players are involved.

We’ll see if the RFL are as bent as I think they are.

How does this affect the ban he has been given. Has he already served a match ban by not playing last Sunday? Or can he now start playing until the appeal is heard? If the latter can he play on Sunday and does last Sundays game not count as a band game? Therefore meaning he has missed 2 games for no reason. It does seem late for an appeal. Maybe if the band is reduced the missed games count as ‘time served’. If the appeal is not upheld then nothing lost.

Thing is didn’t the RFL have them down as same offence (contrary behaviour, lifting an injured player) but a different charge TG grade F and SM grade C.
SM had a high tackle 1 game charge from the previous week successfully overturned TG had no previous disciplinary charges against him.
In every respect TG was clearly unfairly discriminated against by the RFL which is completely against the spirit and a blatant contradiction of the “tackle it” campaign.

The Greatest Game, er no, more like the The Greatest Shame RFL.

Yes my mistake, same offence different grade ,and like you say no previous from gwaze , several from matautia.

He’s served two so far , York and Workington.

I would be looking to appeal some of the bans from the york game too larroyers lifting on pauli pauli he for me flips himself into landing in a awkward position and this seems to be creeping into the game more and more and the only way to stop it is to stop penalizing the tacklers and start punishing the players play acting to try and get others in trouble.

Fenton Rogers won’t be playing this week for us as he has been given a 2 match ban

The RFL’s duplicity in all of this is clearly shown in the different grade for the same offence prior to it being sent to the tribunal.
They wilfully and deliberately gave a lower grade against SM precisely to cap and lower the limit on the length of a ban to a maximum of 3 games because it involved not only a SL player but one who played for one of the big wigs in St Helens who they didn’t want to upset.
All this to do with stamping out discrimination when by their actions show they are one of the biggest perpetrators is sad and simple hypocrisy.

According to Facebook the Saints player has had his ban reduced from three games to one now. You couldn't write it!

Shaun got it wrong , he was referring to a previous incident.

O.K. Still 8 versus 3!

Titus unsuccessful and the 8 match ban remains but because the appeal wasn't frivolous there have been no further matches added. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/di ... -attempts/ Discrimination Definition."Treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people." = 8 vs 3. "Discrimination" not kick it out but kick it in with the boot RFL. You are an absolute disgrace to the game and to the individuals you target RFL.

Titus unsuccessful and the 8 match ban remains but because the appeal wasn't frivolous there have been no further matches added. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/di ... -attempts/ Discrimination Definition."Treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people." = 8 vs 3. "Discrimination" not kick it out but kick it in with the boot RFL. You are an absolute disgrace to the game and to the individuals you target RFL.

Quote ="faxcar"Titus unsuccessful and the 8 match ban remains but because the appeal wasn't frivolous there have been no further matches added. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/di ... -attempts/ Discrimination Definition."Treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people." = 8 vs 3. "Discrimination" not kick it out but kick it in with the boot RFL. You are an absolute disgrace to the game and to the individuals you target RFL.'" It doesn’t matter how calm and objective I try to be about this incident and whatever reasonable angle I think about it , based on all other comparable instances I cannot come to a 5 match difference in ban time , it’s just ludicrous.

Quote ="faxcar"Titus unsuccessful and the 8 match ban remains but because the appeal wasn't frivolous there have been no further matches added. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/di ... -attempts/ Discrimination Definition."Treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people." = 8 vs 3. "Discrimination" not kick it out but kick it in with the boot RFL. You are an absolute disgrace to the game and to the individuals you target RFL.'" It doesn’t matter how calm and objective I try to be about this incident and whatever reasonable angle I think about it , based on all other comparable instances I cannot come to a 5 match difference in ban time , it’s just ludicrous.

Did anyone's expect owt else though? Personally i did funnily enough. I expected a reduction to 5 matches even though that wouldn't have been correct in my opinion. But hey ho! 8 games it is and I suppose if you don't like it you can lump it or walk away from the game. The trouble is, more and more people are doing just that thanks to the morons running the game.

It feels like the have tried to save face on this one. Do they post any detail about the reason for their grading and punishment, or some summary of the basis of the appeal and why it was rejected. At the moment there is no transparency or clarity over the variance in the grading and punishments - in fact from an outsiders views it seems you get a lower grading for trying to move a player who was flat out and potentially more seriously injured, than a player who is clearly able to move and appears to be at far less risk of any injury due to a tug of his shirt.

Interestingly a lot of the disciplinary processes are discussed on a programme called sin bin and have had Paul Cullen and other members of the panel explaining the process, unfortunately the program hasn’t aired since early June . I have emailed the rfl regarding this , I have had replies on other subjects but I’m still awaiting a response on this .

To illustrate, i’m driving down the road with a 30 mph speed limit at 40 mph and get a fine and 3 months ban.
A week or so later your driving down the same road doing 40 and you get a fine and 8 months ban from the same prosecuting authority it’s as clear and obvious as that.

It’s not about Titus being a Fax player I feel exactly the same about discrimination it should be the same rule for everybody.

And with that in mind not only is it discrimination but with the objectives of the “Tackle it” campaign being 100% disregarded is 100% hypocritical.

I’ll support Fax as long as there is a Fax to support but anything else that involves the RFL and I won’t support or spend a penny on it.

Quote ="faxcar"To illustrate, i’m driving down the road with a 30 mph speed limit at 40 mph and get a fine and 3 months ban. A week or so later your driving down the same road doing 40 and you get a fine and 8 months ban from the same prosecuting authority it’s as clear and obvious as that. It’s not about Titus being a Fax player I feel exactly the same about discrimination it should be the same rule for everybody. And with that in mind not only is it discrimination but with the objectives of the “Tackle it” campaign being 100% disregarded is 100% hypocritical. I’ll support Fax as long as there is a Fax to support but anything else that involves the RFL and I won’t support or spend a penny on it.'" If you get some time watch the first 10 minutes of this , even their own reasoning seems to contradict the gwaze incident https://youtu.be/Xe4g_TCFy9M

Quote ="faxcar"To illustrate, i’m driving down the road with a 30 mph speed limit at 40 mph and get a fine and 3 months ban. A week or so later your driving down the same road doing 40 and you get a fine and 8 months ban from the same prosecuting authority it’s as clear and obvious as that. It’s not about Titus being a Fax player I feel exactly the same about discrimination it should be the same rule for everybody. And with that in mind not only is it discrimination but with the objectives of the “Tackle it” campaign being 100% disregarded is 100% hypocritical. I’ll support Fax as long as there is a Fax to support but anything else that involves the RFL and I won’t support or spend a penny on it.'" If you get some time watch the first 10 minutes of this , even their own reasoning seems to contradict the gwaze incident https://youtu.be/Xe4g_TCFy9M

Wait until you see what they’ve done with the England RL kit for the World Cup (even though they insisted the replicas they sold last year would be used this year…)