It's a resounding no from me.

Never a red card in a million years, not when you have Barlow's attack on Lynch two weeks ago at the Shay, an attack that happend in the first ten seconds.

It shows the inconsistency that we have with the referees when in ones eyes it's a red card (Ganson) and in the others it's a I'll hide and put it on report (Bentham).

Barlow was only banned when the incident was looked at by the RFL

.

Reckless high tackle. Yes for me. Sending off sufficient though.

Not a chance. On report.

I can see why you say that Michael.

But I have to agree with Potter on this one in that yes it looked reckless on the big screen in slow motion but at full speed Raynor swung his arm into the tackle and was clearly aiming for Tomkins ball carrying arm like any defender should to stop the try.

Yeah that's how I see it.

An unfortunate yes.

I should also add that the injustice of the red card as I certainly perceive it made us come together as a team, work for each other like we have never done before and I for one think that had we stayed at 13 v 13 the game would have gone away from us.

But I can't take anything away from one to seventeen who gave me the most enjoyment I've ever had while commentating on a game of Rugby League.

The new found new found confidence within the side from today's game should lift us for the next two games which are real four pointers against Salford and Harlequins over the next two weeks.

I dont think it was a sending off, as I dont think it was intentional however I understand that some punishment was required even without intent given the nature of the incident-to put Raynor on report would have sufficed in my opinion.

I said at the time - on report and ten minutes in the bin.

The fact that Silverwood kept looking at the slow motion replay didn't help Raynor one bit.

What should Raynor have done? Just stood back and watched him score? He had no choice but to try and knock the ball out? Red card for that accidental tackle is just stupid.

Doesn't have to be intentional. It was reckless though and as others have said, it was a send off offence but no further action should be taken.

Probably the right call to be fair, as much as it pains me to say. Reckless and a bit silly. Probably a bit over eager.

It did change the game but like its been mentioned the team really did compensate.

Would you say the same if it was Burrow or Sinfield?

it wasn't delibrate but it was deserved, sending off sufficient

For me should have gone reckless high tackle. Think the sending off did bulls a favour TBH. Pulled you all together. Thought you played quite well

Taken from bbc's report: "He appeared to try to dislodge the ball from Tomkins' hands but referee Steve Ganson decided he intended to harm the player"

So the referee believed there was in intent and thats why he sent him off according to BBC. As I have said previously I personally dont feel it warranted a red card.

Probably has to be classed as "reckless" rather than "careless", even if no way deliberate.

In that case, had the boot been on the other foot we would have been clamouring for a red card. But given lack of intent (no matter what the fekkwittery from the Piedome would have you believe) would have to be SOS.

Sort of like we were two weeks ago against fax, when what looked to all he world like a smash in Lynch's face was not red-carded.

Or a few weeks ago when we all saw Webb smash Elima in the face as he scored, but nothing eventuated.

It is the sodding inconsistency - especially when it forever seems not to be in our favour - that is winding people up, I feel?

Ganson didn't have a clue so how he knows that Raynor intended to harm Tomkins is beyond me.

Because it's only natural?

Maybe the Clown was watching the game live in Oz and tweeted him to tell him what to do?

I could give you another stat about Ganson and Bulls players sent off but I won't.

Paul Anderson
Ben Harris
Leon Pryce
Joe Vagana
Paul Sykes
Gareth Raynor

As Adey says, the inconsistency is the most annoying thing.

At the time I thought the red was harsh. Watching in slow motion really does make it look 10x worse though. Has to be asked though, if it wasn't televised would Raynor have seen red?

If Webb had got red and the fax player too then I wouldn't have been half as miffed.

Tomkins looked fine walking down the tunnel too, and I swear I could see a hint of a smirk there (but maybe that's just cos I don't like the kid)