I think Catalan have every right to be angry about this

At this moment in time you are not allowed to use other incidents (no matter how blatant they were) to support your own case. The RFL say they treat each case on its own merits but the rest of us know it would just show up how inconsistent (at best) or corrupt (at worst) they actually are. I personally just hope they are incompetent. It does seem a ridiculous coincidence who their next two games are against. Don't the Kiwi's have these same 'inconsistent' rulings just before they play Aus, funny that eh?

I would be fuming if I was them. Both the challenges were very similar - Taylor's was later and into the back of O'Brien but Taia probably hit him harder. Both were late shoulder charges into the upper body of the same player, so should have been given exactly the same suspension.

How many Catalan players missed the Saints game through suspension?

Selective Saints memory syndrome strikes again!!!

Well at least you don't have the cheek to defend Taylor.

You can argue details for and against, but certainly the tackles were similar enough that one player being found with no case to answer and the other getting a 3 match ban is more than a little baffling.

The Dragons have put together a video highlighting the inconsistencies they see:

[urlhttp://www.superleaguefans.com/catalans-dragons/2013/08/08/dragons-blast-rfl-double-standards.html[/url

cant really argue with that.

A great video that proves there point. The more I see the Scott Taylor one the more it's obvious he was taking him out. It was late, a shoulder charge, high and planned. I'm convinced the only reason he wasnt banned is because he plays for the goons. The other superleague clubs should be standing up for Catalans in this and forcing the RFL to explain themselves

Couldn't agree more. The only one to pick up a ban was the Cats player and it was for 3 whopping games.

..... but will be allowed back to throw some hits at Warrington ...... I'm sure those at the RFL didn't realise this when they came up with their 3 game ban .... honest!

As for Taylor .... he thought it was hilarious at the time ... hitting little blokes just about sums him up.

Web page appears to be down.

The thing that makes me laugh about the Scott Taylor one is that they didn't ban him because they ruled it was O'Brien's head colliding with Wellens that knocked him out.

Under the rule of law, if you throw a brick through a window, not knowing there was someone on the other side of the glass, and the brick hits that person and kills them, you are still guilty of manslaughter (called unlawful act manslaughter). Taylor hits him high, late, with the shoulder, from behind and with intent. Even if there was no intent, he was clearly reckless at the very least and deserves a ban.

Remember when the RFL started dishing out bans for late charges on the kicker (an act that sometimes caused injury) Bendan Costin for Hudds on Sean Long a prime example.

The trouble is the RFL have outlawed something to prevent injury and protect players and since the ban, we have seen more injuries than when it was legal. It can be argued that when players could expect a shoulder charge, they were prepared for it when they play at the line. Now that its outlawed they can take a greater risk but as a result, when it happens, it can be more dangerous.

The Cats player deserved a ban, as did the other 3 or 4 players on the Cats video. Interesting they didn't include the late challenge by a Cats player on Theo Fages eariler in the season though.

I'm sorry, but that set of clips actually undermines their whole case.

They clearly show different tackles.

Is it Sykes for Bradford- hits with sternum, yes it was late, but not a shoulder charge for mine.

Ellis again does not lead with shoulder, his chest hits the Huddersfield man.

Taylor I think hits with the shoulder, but he is not leading with it.

The Catalan player is leading with the shoulder all the way through, there is no attempt to open the arms to even fake a tackle.

If I was going to judge them.

Ellis - fine
Bradford lad - late hit, should be yellow but no ban
Taylor - hits head with shoulder, but did not lead with shoulder 1 match ban.
Taia - leads with shoulder so 2 or 3 matches.
Julian Bousquets - not actually on that set of clips is just sick, luck he did not kill the fella.

Is it a coincidence that in 3 out of the 4 clips, O'Brien is the victim?

Ellis was a great hit nothing wrong with that one.

Agree, Ellis put in more of a cover tackle and just got him the moment he was releasing the ball.

Taylor and Taia where the worse ones with Taia straight to the head. Taylor should have had 2 matches with Taia on 3.

After all that Taia lost his appeal.

Well that's BS considering that each incident is graded and restricts them to a certain punishment. How, then, can it be judged on its own merits?

This is the whole crux of Catalans case ....... not that Taia's ban was excessive, but that others have gotten away with near identical flattenings with no punishment at all, so how can the RFL spout on about 'consistency'?

OK RFL - lets see what happens to Lauaki ....... attempted stamp in 1st half (which thankfully missed as it would've been a leg breaker) and clear as anything off the ball shoulder barge into a little bloke ..... but then he did have his Cherry & White cloaking device on.

I as always, will say lets see what the review and disciplinary (if they get referred) panels come up with.

But here's a thought do you not think that if he had meant to stamp on the player he would have missed?
Did the shoulder charge make contact with Lunt's head?
What about the Huddersfield shoulder charge on Taylor in the first minute (nothing more than a penalty IMO)

Its making the game look corrupt when you have one team receiving preferential treatment in there favour on disciplinary issues.
Anybody notice the chicken wing by Liam Farrell on the Saints player a couple of weeks ago, thought we had seen the last of those.

The shoulder charge was just a penalty but even you can't be so biased to say that wasn't an attempted stamp. Luckily for Scott Grix he's an oaf and missedg

No I’m sorry I didn’t. Must say I haven’t of heard of many that did.