1 match ban, Bollox

one match www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... eford.html

one match www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... eford.html

Yet Cunningham gets off with nearly breaking someones eyesocket. What a load of crap the disciplinary system is.

At least it was only one

We could of done with him against Wakey, but i'd rather it be a one match ban than 4

We always seem to get a player picked out for an offence that nobody can really recall, or that was anything out of the ordinary, just before we are about to play Wakey. Last time it was McG and it has happened before, it makes you wonder.

It really was an innoccuous offence and we really should appeal, although we never do so. Maybe that's because we realise we are the wrong club to appeal, but really there is no way they can increase the penalty without making themselves look a laughing stock. Leeds have appealed several times for instance and had the penalty either quashed or reduced. But then again that's Leeds.

It was totally mild in comparison with what others have, and are getting away with. The disciplinary committee is the biggest joke in RL and I would love there to be an avenue where they had to publically give their reasons for suspending certain 'offences' whilst letting much worse get away scot free.

It is obvious they pretty much like to make an example of certain clubs, which is why I suppose, unlike Leeds we never appeal, as we realise the futility of doing so.

People call bitter but just another kick in teeth by a bunch of c_nts who dont know what there doing.

A bloody disgrace......one rule for one.
Laughing stock is the RFL.

what was the tackle head high or spear ?

late apparantly ,i was at the game and can recall myler been knocked on his backside after kicking down field but it didnt look any different to anything you see in most games although it was on the halfway line and myler had his back to me so i didnt see how ferres had caught him

What a bunch of drama queens you Yorkshire lot are! Stosic is going to be playing for Wakey at the weekend. He had no fracture or break. There's no such thing as 'nearly breaking' a bone! Presumably he might have a shiner when he plays. But if he doesn't, you might just consider that the whole thing wasn't anywhere near as bad as some people would like to believe!

Oh, and PS: Fa'as was banned for one match earlier in the season for a chicken wing tackle. So you see we get bans as well!

i'd agree with cas fans. cunningham took a cheap shot at a guy while he was getting up. it was blatent for all to see, yet gets nothing. ferris gets 1 match ban for atackle no one remembers. it stinks.

Well of course you do! Everyone does! Because Cunningham plays for Saints and at all costs, Saints must be stopped. However, of all our players, I would say Cunningham (and Wellens is another) is so NOT a cheap shot player. Wilkin, yes; Cunningham, no. Everyone who accuses him of that is talking out of their arris.

get over yourself you sound like a wigan fan,i can assure you nobody in cas gives a flying one about saints as where no threat to you neither is wakefield,what cunningham did deserved a ban and your right he`s not a cheap shot bloke but that shouldnt be enough to give him emunity from ever getting a ban.

That old chestnut. Someone disagrees so they must be against Saints. I'm not fussed about Saints and their success, fair play to them.

I just don't see the equality in the system where Player A can get away with punching someone in face deliberately, regardless of injury or not, whilst player B gets cited and banned for an accidental high tackle with no maliciousness intended and a fairly good previous record.

Cunningham has a very good record. Also, he didn't 'get away with it'. He got a formal caution. That's on his record for the next three months, which means that if he does anything wrong again, he could well get a ban (where he might not have done had he not had the caution on his record). The RFL stated that they were giving Cunningham the benefit of the doubt where intent was concerned. They believe he did not intend to hit the eye but they did call the action reckless, which it was. It was a reckless action borne out of frustration. Had the RFL believed Cunningham had been aiming for the eye, which would have been a malicious thing to do, then he would have been banned.

oh would I like to see the roses games back on

Ferres's was reckless. He did not intend to hit the head. So it's still the same thing dressed up.

The only difference is that one was deliberate, the other wasn't. The latter got the worst punishment. It's unfair.

It was a cheap shot Friday night the fact that he is not a 'cheap shot player' hardly makes it ok.

I honestly can't believe Cunningham got away with a deliberate punch to the face. Even more unbelievable is that excuse that "he did not mean to contact with the eye"!. Does that make head-high takcles legitimate as long as they don't contact with the eye?

Spot on there pal, both Cas and Wakey need Saints to be at full strength so that it gives them a better chance to beat our playoff rivals.

The real problem is the lack of transparency in the UK disciplinary system.

Just about every week Cas seem to have 1 or 2 players considered for some transgression or other despite very few of the incidents being noted at the time by the ref.

Its about time the RFL employed a totting up system similar to that used by the NRL.

Benefit of the doubt - that's hilarious.

I wouldn't call taking performance enhancing drugs a 'very good record'

The other thing is that several times in the past there have been occasions when one player or players have been given a greater sentence than another for exactly or the same offence. The RFL have always countered allegations of biasedness in these cases by pointing out that the player who was more greatly punished was done so because he had 'previous' or a bad history of disciplinary problems and therefore deserved a bigger punishment than someone who had a relatively good record.

We have been told that Richie Mathers was up for the same offence as Ferres. So how do they explain giving him exactly the same ban. Mathers was sent off twice with Wigan last year and has already served a 2 match ban this season, whilst Ferres as far as I know is pretty much squeaky clean in comparison to him , although I will stand to be corrected on that. It is like a first offender going to court and being punished exactly the same as a serial offender for the same offence.

I will be deeply unhappy with our club if we do not appeal against this unjust punishment.