Fair enough mate. Good luck for the rest of 2013.

Although they are not the brightest of sparks on here, my missionary work has improved its quality substantially.

No it hasn't

It was certainly of a much higher quality before 24 January 2012.

Is that a compliment tigertot

I'm pleased for you dad, but (a) what's your sex life got to do wi't thread, (b) too much information and (c) you ought to try other positions

What a load of cobblers from the committee. I think someone above got it right when they said "they had to find him guilty of something to prevent themselves looking stupid" - though maybe I paraphrase a little..

I do feel that but for all the shennanigans over a number of previous offences this nonsense would never have seen the light of day.

The person who is left looking a bit stupid is the video ref. I'd be fuming, if I were him. But in general, as the tackle [iwas[/i fractionally late and as Scruton [icould[/i probably have diminished the impact a bit and as, however it happened, the result [iwas [/ia contact with the head, a small fine is about right.

I suppose a fair summary of what's happened is that the VR and ref though there was "nothing" in it, and this has been upgraded to "there was not much in it".

Possible translation, if you were a cynic: "we wanted to make an issue out of this tackle, with a wider agenda, and it was only Bradford anyway and they lack any clout in the corridors of power. We did not give a stuff about hanging the officials out to dry. But we did not expect Bradford to fight the charge, and have a strong case. So we had to find a way of not losing face, by "downgrading" the charge to a level where the club and player would not think it worth fighting it. And we employ the officials and pay their wages, so tough tìttie if they think we have made them look fools. The main thing is to stop US looking fools".

As I said, a cynic might suppose that. Obviously, I could not possibly comment...

Look fools?

The ref (Ganson) does not think it's a penalty.

The VR thinks there was "nothing in it".

The match review panel thinks its a reckless high challenge Grade B deserving of at least a match ban.

The disciplinary thinks there was not a lot in it, but it was a Grade A challenge deserving of a fine.

All we are missing is a charge of attempted murder, and a Pistorius defence that he thought O'Brien was a burglar.

To add to the above, the Sporting life site alleges they found that "However, the disciplinary panel ruled that the player's first contact with O'Brien was legal". If so, WTF could he possibly be guilty of in the next milliseconds?

And now Ganson gets demoted this week.

At least we know the RFL is so professional that there is never any risk of goats getting scaped.

Now I know you are a paranoid bunch on here, even some Leeds fans think there is a RFL vendetta against them, but none can hold a candle to the pathetic inbred Mash Butty on the Whining Wigan site. He starts a thread titled Westwood Wont Get Banned (because the RFL only hate Wigan) which has infinitely more interest (obsession) from the whiners than their teams performance at Hudds.

I think you have got there eventually with that summary. I do feel sympathy for Ganson, it was late, but at full speed & at a different angle not that easy to be sure of, so he did the right thing in letting the game flow &, at the next opportune moment, refer to the VR. He was apparently told there was nothing in it so he had to let it go. The VR is under a bit of time pressure, without the luxury of the review panel, & I am not sure if he has the benefit of all the Sky angles, but it did seem a clear late tackle with hindsight, though I remain unconvinced about the head shot. People make mistakes, Scruton made one but I doubt he will be dropped as a consequence, some made several. There is too much of a clamour for blame & blood these days.

You are Richard Littejohn and I claim my £5 comp-en-say-shun.

That's what I find confusing about the whole thing. What exactly is he guilty of? The tackle was "legal" so he has been fined for what exactly? It's all very odd.

Guilty of an illegal high tackle, it's not confusing. They just decided it wasn't bad enough for a ban.

Initial contact with the shoulder, then knocked his block off. As perfected by Sean O'Loughlin & undertaken several times a game. As opposed to knocking said block off without the aperitif.

Did someone from Wigan eat your hamster Tigs? You REALLY do not like them, do you?

Hmm. Except, none of the words "illegal", "high" nor "tackle" appear in the charge.

As the RFL can't be arrsed to put the decision up, I am at present going by the Sporting Life report, which includes:

"=#BF0080Scruton was accused of making a reckless shoulder charge ...

However, the disciplinary panel ruled that the player's first contact with O'Brien was legal and that a suspension was unnecessary."

Now, I'm estimating that about 50-100 milliseconds elapsed between the first contact, and O'Brien's head striking Scruton's shoulder. I find it confusing because a shoulder charge is thus held to have been both legal, and reckless. Please explain, to save us simple souls with less insight from our confusion.

They banned me last week me for responding to a few insults with a few of my own, after I suggested Liam Farrell was a great club player, possibly not big enough for second row, but with every chance of developing into an international front row. They are like Leeds fans, with a sense of entitlement to superiority, but without the intelligence or wit to carry it off successfully. A number of them are everything I dislike in RL fans.

From Sky Sports (whose journalist I believe actually attends the hearings):

"Meanwhile, Bradford Bulls' Nick Scruton has been cleared to face St Helens after landing a £300 fine after being found guilty of a reckless high tackle on Castleford's Gareth O'Brien.

The Disciplinary panel listened to the argument and felt that tackle was not serious enough to warrant a Grade B charge and downgraded the offence to Grade A. They then imposed a fine but no suspension."

Clear enough?

Why dont we all just give this a rest now, all we are doing is going over the same old ground.

He was found guilty of a guilty of a reckless high tackle, whilst we deem it as a shoulder charge, this will give the RFL enough resource to ban shoulder charges which will bring them inline with the rest of the world (NRL, RLIF), and as the world cup is over here in Oct we cant have to different rules - our players will follow the Brit rule and get penalised whilst the Aussies wont.

Lets move on and focus at the game we have coming up on sat, against as saints team that is smarting at only having gained 3 pts.

Not one bit, as you haven't answered the specific question I asked, at all.