I am entirely serious. I've never seen a league winger so fat, slow and out of shape. No way was he onside.

It was an akward one to judge, seems as though Amor was caught in 2 minds. The tackle was not complete and it looked as though he wanted to make sure with a smother tackle.
I think he just got the technique wrong, he,s not that type of player to cause intentional injury.

It was careless, nothing more. Sin binning correct and a warning about the "technique" should suffice.

I agree, especially as hes not known for his foul play

Plenty of you saying it was a ridiculous decision. If a Wigan player had done it to a Saints player you'd be on the phone to the police

Dead right we would with Wanes objectives of tackle to injure, do Wigan still have those "rugby car crash pictures" in the corridor of the Orrell training ground!.
When I saw them a few seasons ago..........beyond the borderline of sport.

That's because it would have been intentional .

Police? Can't recall saints or lance Hohaia calling the police when Ben Flower assaulted Lance?

Didn't saints offers the support to the disgraceful Ben Flower?

Having watched the game back the yellow was deserved.

As for Saints getting all the decisions, the massive NFL block that took place the tackle before carney's first try was comical. It's as if ref's are now scared to give obstruction.

Interestingly enough sky didn't really make a lot of it compared with Phil Clarke's 'oh no!!!' with the forward pass call which was an understandable decision given that the player was stood in front of the guy passing the ball

Amor charged grade c
Burns charged grade b

Not sure how the RFL can charge Burns for that on Carney when they let Carney get away with a far worse tackle on Escare the last round (after banning Ah Van in R1)...yet again no consistency

Burns 1 match
Amor 2 matches

Imo

I can see Amor getting a couple of matches. I think it would be harsh to ban Burns - he's got a pretty solid defence in that he was thrown off kilter by the hand-off. That one should be penalty sufficient IMO. He does have previous, though, so it may not go his way.

I don't mind those challenges being bans, as soft as they are, but there is just no consistency. I would LOVE to be able to grill the people in charge about how incompetent they are. Burns's high shot was with an open palm, more of a slapping motion. It was an attempt at a grab that ended up high due to Carney's hand off. No way a ban when you compare to Carney's attempt to take Escare's head off in Perpignan as mentioned above.

Amor's was poor technique and ultimately is dangerous. So a 2-3 game ban after a yellow card marks that down as a serious offense. But will we see the same punishment handed out for repeats of this in SL? No, of course we won't.

I think Saints should kick off about how the televised games are over refereed and the non-televised games tend to escape punishment. I see Charnley escaped what even Wigan fans are saying was a clear Smith-esque petulant kick during the Hull KR game. Ignored by the disciplinary as they couldn't tell if it made contact? Utterly bizarre.

Quote ="Saddened!"I don't mind those challenges being bans, as soft as they are, but there is just no consistency. I would LOVE to be able to grill the people in charge about how incompetent they are. Burns's high shot was with an open palm, more of a slapping motion. It was an attempt at a grab that ended up high due to Carney's hand off. No way a ban when you compare to Carney's attempt to take Escare's head off in Perpignan as mentioned above. Amor's was poor technique and ultimately is dangerous. So a 2-3 game ban after a yellow card marks that down as a serious offense. But will we see the same punishment handed out for repeats of this in SL? No, of course we won't. I think Saints should kick off about how the televised games are over refereed and the non-televised games tend to escape punishment. I see Charnley escaped what even Wigan fans are saying was a clear Smith-esque petulant kick during the Hull KR game. Ignored by the disciplinary as they couldn't tell if it made contact? Utterly bizarre.'" This would be my argument against any ban and the credibility of the RFL disciplinary. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5890 You can find the incident on this page Wire Vs Salford 1 min into the highlights... www.superleague.co.uk/sltv/slhighlights#

Quote ="Saddened!"I don't mind those challenges being bans, as soft as they are, but there is just no consistency. I would LOVE to be able to grill the people in charge about how incompetent they are. Burns's high shot was with an open palm, more of a slapping motion. It was an attempt at a grab that ended up high due to Carney's hand off. No way a ban when you compare to Carney's attempt to take Escare's head off in Perpignan as mentioned above. Amor's was poor technique and ultimately is dangerous. So a 2-3 game ban after a yellow card marks that down as a serious offense. But will we see the same punishment handed out for repeats of this in SL? No, of course we won't. I think Saints should kick off about how the televised games are over refereed and the non-televised games tend to escape punishment. I see Charnley escaped what even Wigan fans are saying was a clear Smith-esque petulant kick during the Hull KR game. Ignored by the disciplinary as they couldn't tell if it made contact? Utterly bizarre.'" This would be my argument against any ban and the credibility of the RFL disciplinary. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5890 You can find the incident on this page Wire Vs Salford 1 min into the highlights... www.superleague.co.uk/sltv/slhighlights#

The major problem is that the Sky matches have multiple cameras and therefore multiple angles to have views of any incident. I was at HKR yesterday and didn't see the Charnley incident and there was no camera evidence. I did see Ben Cockayne throwing punches as it was directly in front of where we were sat. It would appear that hasn't been picked up by the camera as it was away from the ball.

Had the game been on Sky then I suspect the review committee would have had a much clearer view on what happened..

And that is grossly wrong for a full time professional sport.

A quick count shows of the 13 charges the rfl have raised so far, 12 were from games on Sky ...

We will struggle without Amor next week or so. He's our only prop that can do decent mins. Big Alex is a 20 min player and Mose 8 min player so I think we will be counting on young Thonpson and Lms to do Amors mins.

I've not seen the incident on tv as couldn't be bothered watching the game again but from what I seen on the big screen it didn't look to bad and yellow seemed correct call.

Same with Burns, I've only seen it at the game and must admit I thought it was worthy of a ban.

Saints are appealing both decisions. Good on them, Saints should always be anti establishment and neither were really worthy of a ban, especially Burns's which looks softer and softer the longer I watch it. The Sky commentary at the time must be looked at as well.

Amors was a bad tackle but didnt look like there was any malice in it. Should be sin bin sufficient and a letter about technique.

Easily onside...don't be so sour.

Amor looked like he let go of the head and dropped his weight on the body? Think a two match ban would be very harsh.

I seem to remember Jones doing exactly the same thing on the NE part of the pitch, I think it was against the Catalans last season. Player retrieving the ball and slipped, Jonesy dropped on him.......penalty and that was the end of it.

When Amor walked off to the pitch he shrugged his shoulders to the crowd as though to say "what have I been sent off for" in my opinion there was no intent to injure so perhaps a warning of technique would have been suffice.

What Amor did was reckless IMO. While the head did come loose it was quite clear than when Amor pushed down, he pushed the player's head forward into his own chest with all Amor's weight going on the player's neck. Amor should be careful. He doesn't have an EGP available due to his ban last year. I doubt the disciplinary committee will take a favourable view of any appeal.

I have no idea why Burns is up before the committee because on TV it was quite clear that he slipped and the Cas player wrong footed Burns. I assume it is Burns' reputation that is bringing him before the committee rather than any offence committed on the pitch. Saints should definitely appeal that one.

I pretty much agree with this. Amor should do a mea culpa, accept that it was a dangerous tackle, apologise for that, but plead no intent, merely clumsiness. Burns should have no case to answer - you see that sort of tackle in every game, and it's why penalties exist.

I've not seen any on the tv as not watched it back. From what I gather, the Burns one wasn't intentional but did make contact to the face. If he's caught him on the jaw then it's still a ban. The Ah Van tackle against Wigan was never intentional but was 100% red card and ban.