I don’t think that damage done should really be used when deciding the punishment for the offending player, the damage a player suffers is more luck than judgement. Look at the injury Paul Deacon suffered in the tri-nations a few years ago. 99 times out of 100 that tackle doesn’t result in an injury, that time it resulted in a life-threatening facial injury.

Would it be fair to have seen a severe ban handed out to Joe Vagana for that high tackle when there will be 99 which are exactly the same which result in no injury (and as such no/a low ban)

Or take striking, is it really fair that a player who swings, connects, and knocks the other out is punished more harshly than a player who swings, and just catches a player? That almost seems a reward for the second player being a bit rubbish at fighting.

It would have been totally unfair to ban Big Joe, as it was of course Nigel Vagana that did it !

What a strange comment. Care to enlighten us?

Don't they do literature in Hull?
I'd have thought most people would have recognised this (mis)quote.

I'm fully aware where the quote comes from. I just don't see the relevance.

dannatt copped a 8 match ban for it

The implication, I would have thought,(unless Tad proves me wrong) is that 'marquee' players are treated differently to the average prole in the game, despite a system which should guarantee fair treatment for all. Seems relevant enough to me.

And for a similar offence, at around the same time, Les Boyd got 15 months in Australia. If Dannatt had received the same ban it would have put the $h!ts up all the **s that made a living hitting better players in the face after the ball had gone.

so easy someone from hull should of got it