It is that incident.
Thaler did not give a penalty, neither touch judge gave anything.
Richardson takes forever to get the kick off. Prior makes minimal contact and it’s not to the head. They show it 3 times on sky. After the 3rd one.
Phil Clarke, yes Phil Clarke “There is nothing wrong with that tackle from Matt Prior”.

How Prior can get 2 games for that when Singo only gets 3 for deliberately going to do Sironen is a total joke.
They are not fit for purpose.

Not a chance of this happening .

That isn't the way to do it. The way to do it is for the club to lobby for change. I imagine we wouldn't be alone. Even if we were, the RFL would have to take seriously a suggestion from one of just 12 top flight teams that they have no confidence in the system.

The issue with it for me is the damage it does to the spectacle of the game when multiple players are suspended for innocuous incidents. RL is a niche sport struggling for money. The last thing we should have is our own excessive judiciary ruining the sport.

Clamping down on head high contact and late hits on kickers is fine, but most of the incidents getting bans are just part and parcel of playing a high speed contact sport. Anybody who has watched the game for a while can tell the difference between intentional versus reckless versus accidental contact, and the level of potential damage. I have no issue at all with Tet's latest ban - in fact I'd argue it should have been longer. But a lot of the others are ridiculous.

I see Leeds are appealing the increase in Newman's ban. If I were them I'd use this as a litmus test of the credibility of the panel. Its childlike behaviour in adding to a ban when a club appeals is ridiculous. That ought to be one power the panel simply doesn't have.

The panel's actions are largely about offsetting liability, I suspect. There'll always be concussive incidents, such as accidental clash of heads, that they can't mitigate. But late or malicious they can. It's nothing to do with fans' or coachs' perceptions but everything to do with discharging a duty of care and avoiding lawsuits.
Newman's is different of course. But behaving like a knob is bound to have its own pitfalls.

The problem with what they are doing now is that they are not doing anything to stop the multiple head knocks a game which come from playing a contact sport, and we already penalise bad offences. Tet's ban is fine, if not too short. You won't prevent lawsuits in the future by pointing at some of these other bans. What you will do is damage the sport on the field.

The NRL went through a similar crackdown and now have a balance that most people think is acceptable.

My issue with Newman isn't about his initial ban, its about the panel increasing it because the club decided to appeal, with the panel calling it 'frivolous'. That's just childish, insulting to the club, and penalises Newman for the club's actions.

It's the player who makes the final decision whether to appeal not the club.

The appeal was a waste of everyone’s time though. Newman should have taken it on the chin and grow up a bit in future. We need him on the field …..

Agreed

Prior ban being appealed. See you in 3 games matt...

The most ridiculous suspension was Thompsons for an accidental trip of which a sin binning was sufficient

Did that deliberate attempted trip /slight trip on Lolohea in the Salford game get picked up by the disciplinary?

In for a penny on this one. Nothing at all wrong with it not worthy if a penalty never mind a card so why a suspension!

As harsh as the ban seems based on our record this year it will almost certainly get increased. To give the process credibility the RFL should publish the grounds on why a player has appealed and evidence submitted and why they have deemed it to be successful or frivolous.

Dean Hadley’s ban downgraded to grade A and overturned on appeal. Let’s see how Prior gets on now then.

Sione Mata'utia Downgraded aswell

If Priors is considered frivolous it will be a joke.

Have you heard of Gamblers Fallacy?

Unsuccessful but not frivolous so still 2 games.

3rd ban of the season for Prior. Can't recall if they've all been for similar offences, but realistically it was never going to be reduced once found guilty.

I’ve watched it about a hundred times, and can’t for the life of me see how he’s supposed to just pull out of the tackle in full flight. Ludicrous decision

Absolute joke.

I might be alone in thinking the Prior one deserved a ban. Maybe one game but with his record you can see why it has nudged upwards.

The situation regarding what is happening week after week with St Helens players is becoming an urgent issue now though - it's being talked about across the game.

Does feel like one rule for Saints and another one for everyone else

Agreed - that’s three weeks on the bounce the opposition have got frustrated and attacked one (or more) of our players.

I assume that’s what you mean, unless you think Lees should have been banned for standing still last week and Sione for tackling a player taking the ball to the line? Even Wigan fans (known for their tolerance of saints players) say it was never a ban.

The “one rule for st Helens” appears to be try to fabricate a ban each week. I think we’ve had more bans than any club and i don’t think o can remember a bad tackle (eg Napa, Tetavano, Singleton against us in the last few games) amongst any of them.

Is it? By who? For all the claims that we're given preferential treatment, I think we're 3rd in terms of charges and bans behind Leeds and Catalans. We've had many a ban this year and far more charges than most teams.

The successful appeals are weird though, I'll admit that.It shows that the disciplinary board itself has major problems. For a charge to be brought I thought they had to agree on it. To agree on it, decide it's a ban, then agree that they were wrong 24 hours later is bizarre. But in the end the right decision has been made. Does anyone know if it was the same people who brought the charge who then dealt with the appeals, or is it different people?

It just feels like the displinary panel is reaching and trying to hit a number, or find something in certain games. I've spotted all season that there seems to be a big trend that when there is a controversial decision going one way, they'll usually find a charge for the other team, no matter how minor. It's almost like they're trying to fend off criticism by trying to balance it. It certainly felt that way with Mata'utia's ban given the Singleton incident and how borderline red/yellow that was. How they even found that to bring the charge is beyond me, it's so innocuous. It was also that way with Lees ban, you're banning three from Catalans, so they just find something to bring a charge, even if it's just for someone running into you.

FWIW I thought Prior's ban was very harsh. For me that's fine, it's a tiny bit late but at worst it's a yellow and no ban. Jason Hooper would have had to stack shelves if these rules existing in his day. I understand what they're trying to do with these bans, but they're going too far. Everyone can tell the difference between a nasty, sly shot on a kicker/passer and a genuine attempt, except the panel it seems.