Exactly. No consitency.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting the correct decision should have been regarding this incident at all, or you just upset that a Bulls player got sent off? Raynor swung his fist recklessly; I will give him benefit of the doubt & believe he was aiming for Tomkins' arm. He missed & knocked him out cold. Now you either think that warrants a red or not. I would put it to you, how tolerant would you be if a convicted thug, racist & crook knocked a Bulls player out cold?

Correct decision would be on report. I don't automatically assume that if someone is knocked out it has been done maliciciously and therefore a red card is needed. Players get knocked out in tackles a lot.

As for convicted thug, racist, crook comment? Not sure what you mean. I am sure that I am not blinkered enough to see that it might have been an accident.

If raynor just stood there, how many fans would of said why didn't he try knock the ball out? why did he just stand there and let him through.

I was thinking of parallels with Ryan Bailey. Raynor's action had a far worse result then anything Bailey has ever inflicted (illegally). I wonder where Bulls fans' sympathies would be if Bailey, convicted thug as we are oft reminded, was involved.

fans from both sides have spouted some tripe about this. Unintentional attack to the head, player knocked out, sending off sufficient and that should be the end of it. I dont agree with the wigan fans calling for ridiculous bans, and i dont agree with the bradford fans saying he milked it. It was a badly timed tackle end of, imo the red was correct and thats where it should end.

I agree with that.

He probably was intending to try and knock the ball out (otherwise I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be stupid enough to do that). It's alright doing that, but the responsibility is then on you to make sure that swinging fist that you're aiming at the ball connects with it, or the air. If you accidentally clobber someone in the head with it, you can't really argue with a red card IMO.

But considering he missed 50 minutes of the match and it probably cost us the game, combined with the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to knock the ball out and not Mr. Tomkins, then I'll be disappointed if it's more than Sending Off Sufficient.

It was unfortunate incident, a mixture of poor timing and technique. I have to be honest and say that for me it was the right decision, if a Wigan player had done the same we would have expected him to be sent off. I don't for a second think that Raynor went in with intent but I don't think Ganson had any choice.

Going down to twelve obviously didn't help us but to be fair Wigan struck the killer blows when it was 12 vs 12 at the start of the second half. No excuses on the day but it was a much much better performance, lets hope it's the turning point for the season.

This.

And that, in a nutshell, is it. no intention to hit the head, intention to hit the ball/arm, but serious contact with the head therefore reckless and a fair enough sending off, in the sense I can understand it, although in 99% of cases it would have just gone on report.

The fact is that often the consequences of what you do are a factor. Had the blow been a couple of inches higher and glanced off, and had Tomkins immediately jumped up celebrating, Raynor would not have walked.

What is it about us and video refs, though? First, does the VR have the authority to send a player off? A first to me. Second, as has been said, there is no way on earth Ganson was going to send Raynor off. Have we got/do we want a system where the VR has full authoprity to rule on on-field incidents, not just tries, 40-20s etc., and if we have, is it only Bradford where the VR calls the shots? or does anyone have any other examples?

At least here, unlike the unbidden decision at MM, Ganson had asked the VR for his opinion, I suppose.

Wasn't Morley sent off in the Test match by the VR?

dont think so. think ganson carded him before it even went to the big screen.

Is the ref supposed to look at the screen while he makes his decision? I thought not.
Ganson asked if there has been contact to the head, the VR confirmed this. If Ganson didn't see it, then under normal circumstances it would be on report but no. Ganson made the call to red card him.
He missed all the other contact to the head that went on in the game then too.

Do the RFL take into account the match result at these hearings?

I always was under assumption that at the RFL's disciplinary hearings they had to take the result of the match as evidence?

When Mathers was sent off by Thaler in the Wigan vs Wakefield game a few years ago I'm certain that was the case, but could be wrong.

As a Wigan fan watching on TV I just thought Sam had been caught by Raynor's knee or something from the angle originally shown by the Beeb.

Only on the replays do you see the hit from Raynor and like others have said it was reckless not malicious as he was going for the ball but poor timing by GR and the fact Tomkins was starting to dive in for the try meant GR caught him on the head.

Had Sam dived a fractyion earlier or a fraction later we wouldn't have been having this thread at all.

I can see why some Bulls feel aggrieved but hand on heart how many of you would have been spitting bullets had it been the other way round and only a yellow been given?

For me sending off sufficient and you actually looked the better team for the vast majority of the game with only 12. It seemed to galvanise the guys left on and on another day you probably would have won.

Regarding Sam's play acting his reputation proceeds him as he does try to milk penalties (but he's not alone in that) and had it been anyone else I doubt there would have been the furore there was.

I missed it at normal speed & couldn't understand why Tomikins was obviously out cold. Big credit to Ganson, he saw it & asked the VR for confirmation. I can't believe anyone watching the VR or getting the view of the VR could question the dismissal. Not a chance in a million years that would ever go on report with the benefit of a VR, nor should it. Bulls fans seem to know Raynor was not aiming for the head, I have as much evidence that he was. I think Ganson would have sent him off without the VR, but again unless Ganson states it in his autobiography we will never know.
There were minimal high shots elsewhere, comparing them with Raynor's is ridiculous, O'Loughlin puts a deliberate (IMO) one in every game which is enough to hurt the opposition but not quite enough to get himself sent off. He obviously learned that one from his B-i-L.

Why would he? Serious question.

Did he have a score to settle with Tomkins? No.

Had he got involved in something shortly before and the red mist was descending? No.

Is Raynor a player who has ever gone around dropping opponents? No.

Was he running at top speed and had an instant to try to prevent a score? Yes.

Given there is only him, Tomkins, and 20 cameras within coee, what chance would him punching Tomkins in the head give of preventing Wigan scoring? None, an instant's thought would flash up "video replay, sending off, eight point try, play with 12 men".

Would a hard blow on the ball/ball carrying arm have done the trick? Very possibly, yes. Certainly it was the only thing there was any point in trying.

A deliberate blow to the head doesn't add up. At all.

He put about 6 in during yesterday's match. I noticed 3 or 4 during the game, but was told by a Widnes fan watching on the telly shortly after, that it was nearer 6.

But they're not comparable with what Raynor did. O'Loughlin maybe should have copped a yellow for repeated high tackles, but none of them were bad enough for a red card. Raynor's, accidental or otherwise, was still a swinging punch to the head.

The red card was correct regardless of intention. Whether he intended it or not will decide if it is sending off sufficient or a lengthy ban. Nobody except Raynor himself will ever know if he was trying to knock the ball or Tomkins out, but I think from a common sense point of view, I don't understand why he would possibly swing a punch to the head in that situation. It's clearly going to get picked up on tv and he isn't going to get away with it. So regardless of what people think of Tomkins, I don't see why anyone would actually do that. Which is why I think it's more likely he was trying for the ball. As I say though, we can only really speculate as there's only one person on the planet that KNOWS what he was trying to do.

I don't think it was deliberate and think he tried to punch the ball out but you do run the risk of missing the ball at that speed thus connecting with his head instead. He decided to take the risk and lost and the sending off is fair in this case. If he makes this arguing statement at the disciplinary hearing he may get off or only get a small ban if the committee also agree with this explanation.

You have repeatedly said he clearly intended to hit the arm or ball. I have elsewhere said I tend to agree it was the arm, but that is purely based on Raynor's on filed record. But when I watch it on replay in slowmo I could eaily conclude he was aiming for the head. In >30 years I have never seen a swinging fist miss the ball by so much.

In watching the replay in close up tho as they did over and over you only see raynor connect with the head but on the camera where you actually see raynor running in he had already commited to the swing BEFORE tomkins made the dive over the line, unfortunately for raynor he dived where as if he had not raynor would of smashed him side on thats why he connected with the head because his head ended up being the height of where the ball would of been

It was a straight red all day long..Raynor had the choice attempt it and be a hero or villain if it didnt come off..or just let him have the try.
Tomkins had him done, raynor went for it and missed..clenched fist, straight arm, straight to the head=straight to the showers.

No probs with it at all..should be sos tho and a warning letter.

For me it was the right call,no intent there but contact with the head from the only defending player near him has got to be red.Yes he has the right to challenge for the ball,but he has then got to hit the ball or at least hit the player below the head.

It's clearly a tactic to try and hit the arm to dislodge the ball, which Platt did earlier on Richards. In Platt's case he hit the upper arm/shoulder and the tackle slid up onto the head, in Raynors case, possibly because Tompkins was moving faster and lower to the ground, he mistimed it and got his head. It fits the category of reckless and should be a sending off but there have been examples of reckless shots to the head (hello Mr Webb) that haven't got the same punishment.