Same happened to Puletua against Salford which put him out for 3-4 games, its an absolute joke.

As it shouldn't - he should be shouting it as loud as possible in all the press avenues available as should the club administrators. We suffer for a couple of shoulder charges and a high tackle non of which has caused any of the players involved to even not be able to complete the game in progress yet we lose 2 key players .... typical RFL bullsh*t , more interested in implementing a stupid detrimental shoulder charge rule than protecting players

Meli was [uvery lucky [/uhe didn't injure Craig Hall more seriously.
Welham is out for 4 weeks thanks to Gardners shoulder charge.
As far as Con Mika's tackle which the Rfl looked at and responded as,


ON/211/13
Name Constantine Mika
Club Hull KR
Shirt Number 11
Match Hull KR v St Helens
Competition Super League
Date 07/04/13
Incident considered Dangerous Contact in 4th minute (Flanagan)
Decision No charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Player tackles legs of opponent held in the tackle however first contact is around thigh


Why didn't Brown compain at the time?

If first contact is the thigh, then how come he has done his ACL in? I thought that was around the knee joint?

Either way, how he has got away with ending someone's season is baffling to say the least.

And in terms of Meli, Chase got 3 games for shattering that poor bloke's jaw, yet Meli gets more for a clumsy tackle that was pretty bad? Seems fair.

For fans of a club, which counted Chris 'coathanger' Burton amongst its ranks, to lecture any one about high tackles is laughable at best!

Because it's the RFL - I'm sure they use some kind of random number generator to dish out bans.

yep, this week it was "Arthur" and set of balls "number 3"

=#FF0000Imo Meli should have got 6 matches(quite a lot of your fans have said the same) but I totally agree about Chase he should have got at least 8 matches.

What a ridiculous response to mention a player from 30 years ago. And where was this supposed lecture??

Well it's a good job the RL dont listen to people like you and SaintFan isnt it.

Isn't the 4 match ban irrelevant anyway as Meli is out due to him breaking?dislocating his arm? If so, the RFL have missed a trick as they could have banned him for longer knowing he can't play anyway and thus showing they are clamping down on dangerous play.

If they did that then god forbid decided to start showing consistency they would have made a rod for their own backs as every clumsy challenge would have triggered an 8 match ban. They were only as harsh as they were because it was a TV game with 9 million slow motion replays making it look far worse than it was. I'm glad it was the BBC though as they called it as they saw it where Slaphead and Wiggy would have been screaming for the death penalty like some idiots on these forums.

The fact he is injured should play absolutely no part in the ban. What a ridiculous suggestion. If they had given him a 72 match ban then they'd have to be consistent with that, so what's the point?!

It was not clumsy,as you keep saying, I was a vicious pre meditated high tackle and replays did not make it look worse than it was. Meli has broken his arm because of the force used.

It was clumsy. Your description is a joke and shows you dont have a clue of the meaning of the words you actually type. The alternative is your trolling.

I once broke my arm tacking someone legally so that getting injured proves nothing.

There arnt many 'vicious' or 'pre meditated' challenges these days although I have seen a few , most of them were commited by the late Terry Newton and I remember a couple by our very own Sonny Nickle.

Your description as "clumsy" is the joke. This is how most people saw it including the Rfl Disciplinary panel,and explains why Meli escaped a longer ban.

Rule: 15.1(b) Detail: High Tackle – Intentional – stiff arm tackle – no attempt to tackle legitimately – violent Grade E

The committee are no doubt this was a serious act of misconduct and had the potential for serious injury which thankfully did not occur. The committee give the player credit for admitting guilt to a very reckless tackle. The player does have an excellent disciplinary record over a 15 year first grade career in Super League and the NRL and feel that a 4 match suspension and a £300 is appropriate in this in instance.

The above highlighted statements will tell you that it was not deliberate (Word not used at all in RFL report) and Meli is not, in any way, that type of player.

Keep bleating but non of your moaning will make it anything but a clumsy tackle, reckless but not dirty, not intentional and certainly not pre meditated like that previous pillock suggested .

He got 4 games and deserved it for being an oaf.

[youtubenCZHmfa4FbE[/youtube

I'd love to hear one of those idiots at the RFL explain how smashing someones jaw to bits like Chase did is worth 3 but a clumsy high tackle where the player is fine is worth 4 . That would be some explanation.

They were clumsy with the pen and put a tick in the wrong box.... Go over the other side of the hill where there have been complaints about inconsistency for years.

And... it wasn't clumsy. You seem to be the lone voice in the crowd beating that particular drum.

Beg to differ , a glance at this thread would suggest otherwise

I have seen every London home game this season, and you could select the players wives and still overpower the London forwards. You'll need to watch Dixon, though, he's on fire at the moment

Oh sorry, Albion mentions clumsy back on page 3 and you continue repeatedly from there in the thread which has nothing to do with Meligate. Whilst many on this board, others and the RFL are genrally not in the clumsy camp.

Keep repeating yourself will not make it come true.