I don't think there's evidence of bias, more that they are being hugely overzealous on the bans generally. Its a physical contact sport and sometimes contact will be a bit late or high entirely by accident or due to fatigue, and anyone who has been around the game would agree that its cleaner now than it has ever been.

As you say, everyone can recognize (or ought to be able to) the difference between a pure accident/low risk contact and something with intent/malice and the in-between of reckless.

Tetevano was for me a deliberate attempt to hurt Hurrell with no regard as to the consequence, and deserved a long ban. Holroyd's punching probably didn't deserve 10 games, but at the same time its something that can be stopped as its under the complete control of the player. As an example it may be useful to remind other players.

But some of these other bans don't do anything except confuse players and leading to weakened sides playing every week. The number of suspensions is just ridiculous and damages the quality of the sport at a time when most teams are running paper thin squads with far less depth than in previous years.

Same here. It’s absolutely outrageous he got a ban and a 2 game ban at that. Absolutely outrageous. If I was a top player here I’d seriously consider trying to move to the nrl, the game here is a joke because of the judiciary panel

Having watched it a few times, I can’t see much in the prior one, his head is already ducked etc and in a tackling motion as the ball leaves Richardson’s boot for me and he’s therefore committed.

Has anyone seen the wording of the charge and ruling (asking because I haven’t) because I’d be interested to see if it got two games purely for the lateness or because they thought it was a touch high? If it was just late, in their opinion, then 2 games seems incredibly harsh when you’re talking fractions of a second.

The only reason he was fractionally late was because he didn't hit with full force. Had he opted to clean Richardson out completely he'd likely not have been charged.
Pressure on kickers has never been lower than it is now, they've pretty much got free rein to launch bomb after tedious bomb on the fifth as it is. It's not an area of the game that needs this degree of policing right now.

Does anyone have a clip of the Prior tackle?

I suspect Prior got two matches rather than one because of his history. If it had been his first offence then he would likely have got a one match ban.

I think the ban itself is a little harsh but from personal experience you know if your shot could be potentially a touch late. Best if you just don't touch kickers nowadays.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the 1990's I don't remember the players chasing down a kicker making regular contact with the kicker after they have kicked. I'm sure there was the odd one but it seems that nowadays kickers are hit very often and I'll be honest I don't buy this being committed to the tackle line because if they were committed surely at some point they would make contact before the kick. For me it's a deliberate ploy to put the kicker off but without any real intention of actually charging the ball down or making a tackle and leaves the potential to injure a vulnerable player that no longer has the ball and is often on one foot. Although if the RFL are wanting to take this out of the game why don't they just say so and make it clear?

Defences were all over the place in the 90s and certainly not organised enough to charge down a kicker.

I've taken a few snaps from the original hit and the slow mos - one does show Prior a short way away from Richardson as the ball leaves his foot and you could make a case for Prior being able to pull out of the tackle or at least soften it. You can also see Richardson preparing to kick well before Prior sets off and Prior does set off in a hurry.
However, Prior does dip his head and shoulders to make the tackle so that he doesn't go high and indeed he doesn't go anywhere near Richardson's head albeit, Richardson's head does rock back. Maybe in his technique to go low, he doesn't actually see the ball released!
Interestingly the Ref waves Smith's protests away and on the replay Clarke of all people comments 'there's nothing wrong with that tackle from Prior'.
All in all very fine margins. The ban was no doubt extended to two because of previous offences.

Where as just now in origin slinging punches to the head gets you 10 minutes

Gagai will pick up a decent ban. If that was an NRL game he would have been sent off.

Lots of incidents in that Origin game that would have got long bans here and red cards.... the NRL however have a brain between their ears and know how to make the game damn good.

To a degree but Origin is also refereed very differently to a normal NRL game as well.

Very true. Gagai threw at least 7 punches to the head. He should have got red carded.
Going by present situation over here he would be banned for life if that was a SL game.

As everyone said fantastic game and not condoning violence but a very different approach in Aus. When the world cup starts a lot of stuff copping bans currently in superleague will be overlooked when Australia and NZ play

And rightly so!

Harry Newman has been unsuccessful in his appeal against the extra game of his suspension and will miss this Saturdays game at
Toulouse

No surprise. I’m amazed the club wasted everyone’s time!

Strange - Leeds should appeal that.

I think in part it’s about stopping the kicker putting everyone else back onside by chasing through.

The club is very certain that the appeal wasn't frivolous. But I doubt they really expected to get much out of the system as it's currently composed.

The club can think what it likes - the problem it has it that it’s player pleaded not guilty to something he was plainly guilty of and then they appealed it.

Take the Leeds slant out of it and I think you’d agree it was a frivolous appeal. There were fans on here admitting as such before the first appeal was held.

Not a good episode for Leeds and some poor decision making.

I'm just telling you what i've heard from the club - which is basically that they had evidence of similar incidents that weren't given this treatment therefore how could drawing that point out be frivolous.

The two match ban was reasonable from my point of view in its own right. But it was unreasonable in the context of previous incidents.

I don't think the appeal was frivolous at all. The original appeal might have had little chance of succeeding, but Leeds clearly didn't just go in and say 'its not fair, reduce the ban' - they put together a case with some evidence of from other games. They then appealed the description of the original appeal as frivolous and the consequent additional game ban.

If the panel is going to apply this sort of thing it should be very clear and upfront, as it is in the NRL - 2 games if you plead guilty, 3 games if you fight and lose the case. No adding extra games on post appeal. That makes crystal clear to everyone where they stand. At the moment the disciplinary puts some of that out but then has this additional right to extend bans. Its utter kangaroo court territory.

Note here I'm not saying the original ban was too short. I am saying that clubs should be allowed to put in defences and not have them rejected as 'frivolous' if they genuinely believe there is a case and provide evidence to back that up. A perfectly reasonable outcome from the original appeal would have been that the ban was upheld despite whatever evidence Leeds produced. Or, if the system was as in the NRL at least Leeds and Newman would have known in advance that fighting the charge could lead to an extra game. They may well not have done so if that was the case.

The 2 game ban was accepted.
This appeal was against the additional game given for the previous appeal.
They were trying to demonstrate that the previous appeal was not frivolous.