The real travesty is that he got more of a ban for his part in a collision that was mostly silverwoods fault than he would have done foe a speaar tackle, elbow drop or ironically, leading with the knee

I think we need to change the words of the song to Silverwood he does what he wants!

Exactly right. Ridiculous priorities at the RFL.

Higham tries to take a player's head off and gets two games. Bailey tries to get a bumbling inept official out of the way and gets three.

If Wilkin and Peacock want to do something useful with their shiny new union they could ask serious questions of the RFL about why they punish someone more harshly for shoving a referee than they do for attacking a player's head. Is referee's "safety" more paramount than player safety?

That said I don't want players touching officials and am pleased Leeds have taken this on the chin.

Third line, fourth word. The mind boggles.......

indecent+touching, lucky to get away with 3 matches

If such a deliberate action from a professional player ever happened (and hopefully it never will) I'd be unhappy if that player ever played the game again at this level.

Credit the club for coming out in support of the ban and respect our sport has for officials. As the ball was passed beyond the C defender it didn't really affect baileys effectiveness in the line, im sure he enjoyed a little shove on the ref, poor positioning from silverwood, but no major deal just making a statement and Leeds seem to have accepted it.

Sorry

- but in my defence I do feel really passionate about this injustice and my typing my have got ahead of me a little.

A sensible conclusion my backside, 3 game ban for Bailey a total joke. Bailey did nothing wrong.

Bailey's shove looks unnecessary from the Sky footage but not from the amateur footage on youtube. I bet the Panel only saw one of the views.

3 matches for something the Ref didn't even give the player a telling off for and that no spectator or even media picked up on before the referral to the board seems way out of proportion.

Of course he didnt see it, when has Bailey ever hit anyone whilst they are looking

Got to say that I think the RFL have gotten this wrong. There was nothing malicious in the incident and it was caused by Silverwood's poor positioning. Bailey deserved a warning, possibly a small fine, but not a ban.

I have to say it was worth a ban from what I've seen. Bailey actively pushes out with his hands at the ref. Regardless of the reason, you simply can't do that. Three matches may be a bit OTT, but the RFL is obviously trying to send a strong message to all players.

What happened on friday wasn't as dramatic as this as 00

You appear to have Bailey mixed up with Lee Radford

Um, no he hasn't

No he isn't

Radford would be hitting a player while they arnt looking AND while they are on the floor with no chance to retaliate

I agree that it seems harsh, but it sends the correct message out about conduct towards referees, when in recent times the standards have slipped a little

The maximum penalty of 3 matches is obviously a warning message for future incidents. IMO seems a very OTT reaction. Bailey shouldn't have 'pushed' him (the contact I've seen seems very minimal) and Silverwood shouldn't have been in the way.

The annoyance is how this ban compares to others for high shots etc. Just seems silly. Even more when techniques like DDT's are awarded just as a penalty, reviewed and not punsihed. Logic seems to have been left behind.

Bailey will have to go away, gnash his teeth for a few weeks and crack on.

I was going to post something similar. It may only be a shove and Silverwoods fault, but if he was given a telling off at Red HAll, whats next a Di CAnio situation or GAz Hock from a couple of years ago?

I wonder what would have happened if BAiley tackled and prevented the try? Or just tackled the player at the same time taking Silverwood out at the same tme?

Shoe-in for mass t hysteria thread of the week!

Apart from a few rational exceptions.

The most ted man in super league can't do what he likes then.