NATHAN McAvoy?

No conflict of interest there, then.

J Hamer I assume is Jon, our former Prop who was on today's panel. I assume your comment was said in jest though.

Graham Hallas has no bradford ties either eh ?

So in effect a 3 match ban. For an accidental tackle. What a joke.

When you see all those deliberate head shots get let off game in game out. Crazy.

Hope we do appeal. I would expect to see this reduced.

Would have been SOS had it not been on TV. And most RL hacks I have seen reporting on the match thought the sending off was actually harsh anyway (see e.g. yesterday's LE, not normally known for its pro-Bulls stance) although I suspect the Pies would have gone totally apoplectic (OK, even more so) had he not walked.

Sick and bloody tired of the inconsistency. Some other clubs seem to suffer from it too, and some players from other clubs seem to get away with murder. Rarely though do the decisions seem to go in our favour. So strange, that.

I can see why he has been given the ban and I'm in no way surprised, mainly because he's wearing a Bulls shirt.

The thing I do struggle with is the inconsistency of all similar disciplinary issues.

It does seem to be one rule for one and one rule for another.

It was. I hoped the winking smiley would indicate that.





Not just "pies". My better half is a Bradford fan, and she said at the time that it would be a disgrace if he stayed on the pitch. He HAD to go, there was no question. No-one can say it's debatable without people seriously questioning their sanity. Which is a shame, because until I read his comments, I actually quite liked Mick Potter, even when he was Stains' coach.

Staying on the subject of consistency, I thought the first tackle by Halifax in your previous Challenge Cup match should have received a red card too.

Whilst I don't think Raynor SHOULD appeal, I do suspect he might get a match shaved off if he does.

I think the 2 game ban is harsh, he was out of most of the game and has been fined thats sufficient punishment.

Given that Raynor received the maximum amount of games for that offence, do we have anything to lose by appealing? I take it the panel can't add on more matches when they've already handed out the maximum for that offence?

Why not?

The RFL establishment seem to make up new rules on a regular basis if it disadvantages Bradford?

Well he has already got 3 matches for this one, so they introduced a new rule right there.

You are either Raynor's dad or have rabies.

Pretty much what I expected. 1 match for the offence and another because it was against golden ba!!s

Both.

The last time I saw a failed appeal - Senior last year? The fine was increased but no extra games.

I think our player jake webster had an appeal this year which was turned down.

Was the fine increased, or was it just "Costs of the appeal hearing"?

I know the difference is slight, but that's what Raynor would be guaranteed of at the very least if he's unsuccessful.

Jake Webster in February appealed a two-game ban but failed.
Scott Moore failed an appeal in March after being banned following a match against Leeds.
Joel Tomkins after his ban for use of the elbow against Hull in March.
Wayne Godwin after his shocker at MM. He also had to surrender an "appeal bond".

Ah - so they just make you pay for bringing together the appeal board if you fail

I think they do have the power to increase the ban mind.

one match ban for the offence and one match for playing for Bradford as normal

OMG... You lot are more paranoid than we are!!!

Its not paranoia - if you watched all the bulls games back this season, it would be hard not to find one where we have NOT been done over by the ref, that also includes games we have won !!!

I can name 1 of top of my head, and that was Cass at home, think the ref was pretty fair in this game, any others id have to watch back.

You shouldnt need to - why wasnt you at every game ????????????????