Seriously? I've seen at least three instances of people swinging to hit the ball and missing by as much in NRL matches this year. As Noble pointed out players are now coached to do it.

Or do you mean - missing the ball by as much and hitting someone in the head?

In my opinion that's unusual and unlucky. I think some of those who believe he did it on purpose are making a judgement on their assessment of Tomkins' personality rather than Raynor's, i.e. despite liking him and supporting him they recognise he's a big enough pain in the a$$ to warrant a punch in the head and therefore someone colliding with him must have had that intent. But that's not a logical or coherent argument.

The balance of probabilities is that he was going for the ball. Tomkins is extremely fast and was diving for the line, it's unfortunate but no major harm done and I have no problem with a red card because it was obviously a bit reckless.

Remember this happened in a split second and if Noble's right and players are coached to do it, then Raynor was behaving in a correct and 'professional' way - he just got his timing wrong. Fortunately Sam is alright, Wigan won without him and we Bulls fans feel more positive about how the team played, time to move on.

Totally agree whats done is done, just down to RFL to deem whether sending off was sufficient !!

To be honest, i think the RFL will give him a ban(not that he derseves it) but thats just bradfords luck.

It's been a while since we've had a player up before the beak. Full advantage will be taken and I expect he'll get two matches. They can only go on the video evidence and whatever Raynor says in mitigation it looked pretty malicious, like he was peeved Tomkins had scored so cracked him one for his trouble.

Watching it on TV, Tomkins had a look of Mr Punch waiting for the puppet show to start when he was on the floor.

What evidence that he was? The way he was lining his chin up from 50 yards away?
Or did you find a threatening note that Raynor left for him in the dressing room?

If you are saying it, then it is almost certainly so. You are one of the few really qualified to honestly comment.

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2730=#800000Up before the beak, as expected.[/url Looking at 1-2 matches based on the charge.

Interesting to see that no fewer than FIVE Wigan incidents were considered - and they get off on them all. But that is a lot of incidents, and most are around the things that everyione has been playing up about all season. If nothing else, they must be sailibng close to the wind?

No other incidents for Bradford, incidentally. So we would seem not to be.

The apoplexy continues on the Pieboard.

I meant missing the ball & hitting the head. I've seen attempts at ball & all that have missed the head completely.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Noble says it is coached. Hitting the ball in the tackle has always been coached.

All I have is the VR. Clear cut strike to the head. Only Raynor knows the truth.

I'm pretty certain what Noble is saying is coached is trying to hit the ball carrying arm. Because Raynor is coming from the side and behind he can't reach the ball so instead hit the arm to try and make him drop the ball.

Nobby was just saying what we know to be the case, players are coached to strike for the ball - consequently on the balance of probabilities he was doing as coached, rather than trying to punch Sam's lights out as asserted by others.

Point being Sam and his big brother are not angels, both were banned earlier this year, as we know. Consequently when Sam gets laid out people jump to the conclusion it was likely to be malicious when the context - players coached to strike for ball to prevent a score - says the opposite. An event needs to be put in context to be understood, Mlaud.

Just watched the incident again, cold light of day and all that. IMO there is no way he was going for the ball. It was an attack to the head. I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt yesterday, but on revisiting the incident it was clearly, imo, a deliberate attack to the head.

Name says it all.... CHAV

I think the hitting the ball thing is stupid, his arm was far from the ball, I believe he tried to hit Tomkins shoulder to turn him onhis back and hold the ball up. He did a similar thing against Wakefield's Griffin made that break and Raynor caught him.

Chav?

Please explain... Oh and if you are too stupid to recognise a subtle play on words, if you ask nice i will explain in simple words you can understand..

But after the incident when Joel went up to Ganson he must of had a few hardsh words as Ganson told him not to speak to him like that, surely if Joel has given ganson abuse this should also have been an issue ie. sinbin, as have seen sinbinnings for foul and abusive language aimed at officials

Raynor made a mess of his challenge but at that speed it's a difficult one to complete. There's a lot of armchair experts with opinions that have never actually tried anything like that on the field. I'd say a 1-2 game ban is probably what it deserves.

As for the consistency of decision making on the field and before the committee that's another issue. On this particular challenge I think Raynor did deserve a red card and I could understand a 1 or 2 game ban IMHO of course.

Are you off your rocker, he plays for the bulls not wigan !!

Just looking for the last time a Wigan "deliberate attack to the head" knocked someone out..... Nope....

No as in we are not a set of dirty cheating pie-eaters like you lot,

Rugby league is not the sort of game where players do that sort of thing deliberately, and personally i think your an idiot for suggesting otherwise !!!

Without a VR there would have been an in goal touch judge, and Ganson was also pretty close. The way Tomkins went down would have set alarm bells ringing.

Players don't just pass out as they are going to scorwe a try.

I haven't seen the tackle that is referred to a couple of weeks back in the OP so can't comment on that, but the only other tackle I have seen with a swinging arm where the player is knocked unconscious was the Mathers on King one a few years back.

This wasn't a normal tackle that you see week in week out. I don't believe that Raynor did it on purpose, but then I always give players the benefit of the doubt as I don't believe anybody would like to hit somebody clean on the chin and knock somebody out.

The simple fact is though, that careless or reckless tackles can still warrant a ban. I wouldn't be surprised to see 2 matches, but as has been said, maybe they will knock one off due to the red card.

How naive of you... OFC players do it deliberately... And Raynors assault was in my view deliberate.

If you watch the replay properly and not just the slow mo replays you will see Raynor commits BEFORE tomkins lowers to dive (therefore would of hit the ball carrying arm) and at that speed a bit hard for him to pull out !!!

Good post, and would agree with that 100%.

I feel some people are going over the top either way, whereas your view appears balanced to me.

Aw shucks