It looks like you're never going to get the message that if this stuff isn't rooted out there won't be a game any more.

That's exactly what I expect if he's incapable of tackling Fusitua legally. The onus is never on the ball carrier to do anything other than hold on to the ball, using this logic it's easy to argue that Widdop shouldn't have been dipping, if he'd been stood upright he'd have forced an illegal tackle to get hit in the head.

The big difference that I can see between the Dwyer and Currie tackles is that one [icould [/i have caused serious injury and the other one [idid[/i cause serious injury. In both incidents the tackler was at fault, in both incidents it was accidental and a touch unfortunate, but they were both cases of foul play and it beggars belief that Currie's has gone completely unpunished.

As for the disciplinary panel suggesting to him that he goes lower next time? Why not just say that to Bentley and let him get away with it as well? It's not like he wanted to hit Widdop in the face. Going lower next time doesn't remove Fusitua's concussion, it doesn't give us a world class winger next week, it doesn't give us the benefit of playing against 12 men for ten minutes. The whole incident has been handled terribly from minute one when the video ref didn't alert Kendall and Leeds didn't take the lad off.

Surprises me that Currie's was not deemed reckless. He has shoulder charged someone in the head causing them to go off with concussion and to miss the next game.

If the RFL are so keen to safeguard against head injuries then surely the onus is on the defender to ensure they do not make contact with an opponents head. There should be no excuse for shouldering someone's head. Tackle lower and you won't knock your opponent out.

Appealing the 3 match ban for the Bentley red card is the worst idea ever. No chance of getting it reduced and will almost certainly be changed to 4 matches. Jake Connor only getting 1 match though is very questionable. Although no clenched fist! He is wrong footed and takes out a player that has neaten him. If Oliver Holmes is deemed a 1 match ban and Bentley 3 then Connor should get 2. Its all very inconsistent.

I can't understand how between Kendall and the video ref the Fusitu'a incident wasn't put on report. At least then we would have got a penalty.

However, considering Kendall's handling of the match against Catalans in the 2020 play-offs (no penalty for either incident but subsequent 8 match and 6 match bans for Tomkins and McIlorum) we should not be surprised.

I don't for one second believe that Kendall is deliberately biased against Leeds. Unconscious bias though? That is another question.

If Fusitua on Litten was fair, think we just nee to accept that the Currie tackle was too…..

You jump around a bit don't you from 'the games being ruined " then to this. Fusitu’a didn't make contact with littens chin though?

My thoughts too Holmes and those incidents against Catalans in 2020 don't really do Kendall any favours do they?

4 matches now great start to his Leeds career .

Got exactly what we deserved for appealing that. Absolutely crazy.

Wire appealing oliver Holmes ban too, another increase?

100% agree don't understand the logic it was definitely a three match red card and we clearly have a very poor relationship with the disciplinary panel

We're getting laughed at all over the other RL sites . They really love us dont they

Appealing after he pleaded guilty too lol. Yep he got increased to 2 games.

While its a bit daft to appeal an obvious ban like Bentley, the panel needs to avoid giving the impression that any appeal could lead to an increase. An increase is either an admission they were wrong in the first penalty, and/or a punitive response for daring to ask them to review a decision. Appealing a ban ought to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you think you've got a case - the default outcome of appeals ought to be no change. To stop spurious appeals make the appealing club pay costs if the ban is upheld/increased.

Its clear the club has decided that the usual route of quietly talking to the RFL behind the scenes just isn't working. Using the YEP is a nuclear option and I really hope they thought there was no other choice. If the RFL keep picking Kendall for Leeds games he'll be under enormous pressure, and if they don't it will look like they've caved, or even worse accepted some truth to the clearly implied view that Kendall is biased against Leeds.

This does need to get sorted out. For whatever reason one of the SL clubs has lost faith in the disciplinary system. That is not good for the sport.

Can we appeal against the ban being extended?

No.

On another issue and probably a more important point. How the hell did Leeds' medical staff and coaches deem it ok for Fusitua to play on for around 20 minutes when everyone in the stadium could see he had concussion like symptons? He was doubling up, behind play, looked unstable and couldnt hold the ball. It was clear he wasnt right yet they let him stay out there.

In times where we talk about player welfare Leeds need to fully investigate how that happened and ensure it never happens again. Players safety and well being should be the priority above everything.

Leeds should know much better after Rob and Stevie Ward. The medical staff are there to save the players from themselves. Disgusting.

Absolute insanity.
Got exactly what we deserve.
I thought 3 was pretty fortunate.

Maybe we thought 3 was too generous and appealed to get it extended....

What do you mean? I thought both were brutal but fair tackles ……
I want less cards and bans, Unless clear foul play involved…..

Does my memory not serve me well or did sin bins ever used to result in a ban? Unless in the circumstance where further information comes to light it seems a contradiction to giving a yellow in the first place 'right I'm giving you 10 minutes now, then you can play out again, but then you need to sit out another 80.' seems bonkers to me?

Think Your being very harsh using words like ‘disgusting’. If a player is saying they are ‘ok’ and there’s no neurological or signs of significant neck injury then it’s reasonable to see how things go. Otherwise we’d be pulling players off mid game unnecessarily….

Got what we deserved, Bentley needs to learn quick, i have my doubts he will, but if anythings going to get the message through to him it will be this start to his leeds career, couldnt of started any worse. His dicipline the second half of last season for Saints was woeful over a stretch of games, pure stupidity.

The NRL went through similar issues early last season. Players getting binned then banned left right and centre. It then settled down as the season went on. We need to box much more cleverly early doors to avoid bans but I do agree it’s madness. It’s also robbing the sport of its stars who are sat on the sidelines for weeks

The general idea is that the HIA procedure is precautionary. Plenty of players are taken off "unnecessarily". There was plenty signs that Fusitu'a was concussed. Unfortunately Agar's greatest concern seemed to be why someone would pass to him rather than asking why he was on the field at all.

So the message from the disciplinary panel is: our decisions are final and don't bother appealing. In effect there isn't an appeals system.

Fine, so long as we know that.

I've said it before but the system needs an overhaul IMO. Looking at the incidents, 10 mins sin bin was sufficient for Dwyer (10 mins in a tight game can easily cost you the result). I'd say 2-3 games for Bentley, it was reckless. Maybe they're setting the stall out early in the season to put a marker down and try to prevent more incidents.

It is what it is, we just about have the squad depth to cope at this stage.