Told you so.

Bit harsh, it was just clumsy.

What an absolute Joke, Burgess is banned but Greenshields gets no ban he nearly decapitated Halley. The RFL disciplinary panel is a farce.

Aye, Halley was lucky to escape with his head intact.

He was, couldn't understand the penalty try though, he did get up and put the ball over the line

I thought the same, the ban seems very harsh

It'll be all that 'previous' that went against him.

An interesting test of Leeds' barely adequate forward strength coming up then. Thank gawd it's only Bradford away.

Absolute joke of a decision

Add to the farce Mason running 30 yards to smack someone and gets nothing.
Burgess getting one game ban is a joke.

Unfortunately there has been a lot of discontent and mutterings from other fans forums and teams about how our players have been getting off lightly this season for similiar offences to others that have picked up the odd game ban.

I know the panel shouldn't take notice of this whispering campaign but I think they've decided to make an example of us/Burgess to prove to others that the RFL disciplinary panel has some teeth and are not afraid to hand out bans to ours and Saints players to stop the rest moaning of unfair treatment.

I don't think there was anything malicious in the Burgess tackle.Just an ordinary clumsy high shot that you see week in week out,a penalty and thats it.

Its not as if the pundits or even the Saints fans were baying for blood at the incident.

Some incidents you see and you think straight away that he'll be in trouble but the Burgess tackle was not one of those IMO

At least it gives him a break over easter. I imagine we may rotate the saud a bit in these two games

Quite true it just dictates Burgess' time out over Easter. It's always a juggling act over the two/three games anyway.

If we don't get to see an Ambler, Manning or Chandler ect somewhere over the next three games then will we have to assume their not deemed ready for 1st grade action yet?

Burgess is appealing against this decision.

Burgess has been treat harshly but during the season we've generally been dealt with leniently so its' swings and roundabouts.

A couple of years ago Mathers (whilst playing full back for us) high-tackled someone who went on to score. The referee awarded a penalty try and in the week Stuart Cummins said this was a mistake - the try should have stood where the ball was grounded and a penalty try should only be awarded if the attacker was prevented from scoring illegally. Unless the laws have changed, the referee and the video ref. managed to get that one wrong.

I also thought Greenshields' tackle was worse than Burgess'. I don't mind Burgess getting banned but would like some consistency.

for the last few years that has been a joke.all teams,including us, have had terrible decisions go for and against us. it's about time they got some consistency

tvoc = the new AP

Thats a fair assessment. I would say that it will be the first team on Friday, and there will be a few people taking a breather on Monday, as FWIW I think Bradford on their day can still cause us problems. I'm not sure Salford at home can

Every board could do with one (and I'm flattered) but alas it won't be me.



I can just imagine Richard Agar saying that last weekend and like us they're out of the cup now but it couldn't have fallen any better than Salford up after Bradford.



And I bet you'll never guess which referee (with a brain the size of a planet/peanut) came up with that classic call?

If you're struggling look towards the foot of this page here for the [url=http://viewtopic.php?t=403707&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0answer[/url.

Its been overturned now.

Rightly so too, he is a good lad is Luke by the looks of it.

Hit Roby high, yes, but wasn't a gobe about it and checked to make sure Roby was ok and apologised.

Good on him.

Good player for you guys too.

The disciplinary panel were just out to prove a point with regards a perceived leniency towards Leeds this season. It was never likely to stick on appeal and good on Leeds for persuading Burgess to challenge the decision.

Unusual for them to persue an appeal, perhaps they felt they had nothing to lose and were short on forwards this week. Just a thought.

Or perhaps they saw greenshield's get away without a ban and thought the panel were having a laugh!!
Just a thought.

Perhaps but seeing as the disciplinary panel appear incapable of consistency between any two judgements normally anyway and the appeal panel consists of different members, the Leeds player nearly always takes the cautious approach and accepts the verdict. Of course the appeal panel have the discretion to increase the ban also.

Wouldn`t it be ironic if Burgess was named 18th man against the Bulls.