No. The Rangi Chase tackle v Leeds was neither put on report or missed by the match official yet a Sky-led witch hunt ended up with him receiving a 2-match ban.

He's been charged with a Grade B, he has early guilty plea available

Not sure early guilty plea helps too much. Iirc if you use it then you get the minimum ban covered by sentencing guidelines so scruton would be banned for sts game. Or we contest charge and worst case is he misses next two or best case gets not guilty. Suppose it depends how confident we are that the challenge was ok.

So just so we're all clear, is a late tackle a banning offence in all instances or just if its a Prop forward on a smaller player? The tackle appeared worse because of the weight difference between the players, would we be seeing a similar charge if Scruton had made this tackle on a fellow Prop? I am happy to see serious foul play clamped down on but this is ludicrous in my opinion.

I would fight the charge if it was me but it will be interesting to see what the Bulls decide.

Rubbish.
Because the game didn't stop immediately after the tackle I am not sure how far back the ref/video ref can go back to review an incident. Can a ref send a player off/sin bin more than a tackle after an incident? I have no problem with the situation where the game flows on & all games are reviewed in the cold light of day.

The photos and the DVD show a clear late high hit, but as usual the fans of the team block it out, Ganson & Silverwood got it wrong, another shoulder to the head, what the refs in our game don't seem to be able to police. if it's late it's late, & the ref & his flag wavers should not mis it

It was late. It was foul play. It meant Cas were without a player for the first half. If Scruton had relaxed himself then O'Brien wouldn't have been injured to such an extent. The weight difference is irrelevant for the pending charge, if a direct cause of the injury.

It wasn't a clever tackle from Scrutes.

However, in my view, had the player not been injured or the game been on Sky, Scrutes would not be up in front of Red Hall.

For me an illegal challenge is when a player runs in with a raised elbow, swinging arm or makes deliberate and direct contact with the head or similar. Scruton was late but his first contract was shoulder to shoulder, how can he be responsible for how an attacking players body reacts to that challenge?

I agree though, if he'd made that challenge on a bigger player the tackle wouldn't have even have been mentioned, how can that be right?

So if he'd have jumped straight back up, do you think Scruton would still be up before the panel?

Poor decision, but not surprised as their decisions are always inconsistent. Sidlow was taken out after he passed the ball in the second half, not one mention of that because he played on.

So if the Cas player had been ok, the tackle would have been ok? Interesting.

I'd also be pointing out to the review panel the challenge that took Kearney out on 47 mins after he kicks the ball through. That was a challenge on a halfback where the Cas forward could have pulled out..Kearney needed treatment for that hit.

Cas fans were criticized for backing Chase, when the evidence was not their.

Some Bulls fans still cannot except what the picture shows, he was late & high, the picture was posted and then removed, maybe it was too graphic, the next player to cop a late high shoulder might be a Bulls player, & if he cops it hard enough, he might not get up.

We did, it was Brett Kearney who received an aggressive shoulder from one of your players on 47 mins. He needed treatment but managed to carry on so that was fair game.. Apparently.

You mean like you did when it was Chase?

Sounds like we aren't taking early guilty plea. Scruton just tweeted about getting to fight his case tomorrow.

It isn't "rubbish", it's my opinion, you mardy twot.

You may indeed be unsure, but my statement was based on the fact that I heard Ganson tell the Cas players that they'd had a look at it, and there was nothing in it. He could, I grant, have been lying to them, but I don't think so.

I have no problem with anything being reviewed in the cold light of day either, but if a top referee acting as VR says there was nothing in it, then a decision to the contrary makes him look an idiot and completely undermines him.

What a ref and a VR can/can't do is, on the QT, a purely academic question, we learned at MM that they tell each other whatever they want whenever they want to, and that clearly hasn't changed (which situation, for the avoidance of doubt, I would be perfectly happy with, in the case of things they have genuinely seen and the officials have missed).

If you watch the replay the only contact with the head is when O'Brien is hit on the shoulder and his head goes forward into the shoulder of Scruton

Good on him, I think it's the right decision. Whether the panel come up with the right decision is another question entirely.

The charge has nothing to do with the fact the tackle was late (though it wont help Scruton's cause), it is "striking with his shoulder to the head Castleford half-back Gareth O'Brien". The panel have watched the replays and come the the conclusion that contact was made with Scruton's shoulder on O'Brien's head.

do the panel who decide who comes up before them, actually hear each case that week?
I was under impression it was independent and changed week by week?

Interesting how all the noble Bulls fans are now deliberately misinterpreting posts to try & deflect attention from their earlier assertions that a fairly obvious late tackle was fair. The tackle I thought was deliberately late, therefore it was foul play, irrespective of if it was high or not (which I didn't think it was). There's bound to be a reflection in the panel decision based on the severity of the injury caused by an illegal tackle.
For me the interesting outcome is that Scruton will now probably be banned, whereas if it had been called at the time I think he would only have got (& deserved) a yellow. I interpreted it as the same as a late tackle on a kicker which I think is automatic yellow.

Edit - if what I am reading belatedly above then it wasn't late just high, which I disagree with.

It is rubbish, just my opinion you understand, when you state Scruton cannot be disciplined as there have been numerous incidents where players have been called up after the game.

Any views on BK being taken out on 47 minutes? Personally I saw not much wrong with it but it was a late hit without thr ball on attacking player that could have caused injury... where is the line drawn?