So now you can plead not guilty despite overwhelming evidence of your guilt, show zero contrition, actively apportion blame to your victim and still not only get the grading reduced, but not even get the maximum penalty in the reduced grading?

You've certainly set a benchmark for the future there RFL, bravo.

Every SL club should file that one, and brandish a copy when they go to future hearings with their own players - it makes no attempt to properly explain the downgrade decision and appears to allow Motu Tony to apportion all the blame on the victim, without challenge.

Also - a small issue - but the presentation of these reports is dreadful; if one of my managers produced that, I'd send it straight back...

So not only is Sneyd a dirty little toerag, he's also a dirty liar too.

Nice guy.

Bizarre. Sneyd and Tony seem to argue he wasn't gripping the ankle, he didn't turn him and it was all McGuire's fault. They should have doubled the ban. Can you imagine if Gareth Hock or Rangi Chase had done that? We'd be debating a 12 game ban.

Further facts:
1. Panel having assessed the full evidence found it was not a deliberate act on Sneyd's part
2. McGuire named in Leeds 19 for Friday.

I'm wondering why that got two matches for a deliberate and dangerous contact while Ferres also gets two matches after an EGP - and after being sent off for 70 mins for a single punch on a player who was facing him and played on after that

Nice and consistent

1 - They are incompetent, inconsistent and a farce
2 - Irrelevant

Hmm. Opinions vs facts, of course.

So.

McGuire is tackled. Sneyd rolls him. It looks bad.

McDermott blathers on about a broken leg at the press conference. Everyone goes barmy and starts calling Sneyd everything from a pig to a dog. Despite the fact that McGuire was posing for photos after the game, so clearly didn't have a broken leg, ankle, or in fact anything.

Sneyd gets a ban, after the RFL have reviewed the evidence.

McGuire is named in the 19 man squad.

So, Sneyd gets a - deserved - ban, but Leeds and McGuire are guilty of some pretty unsavoury gamesmanship, knowing there's a game coming up against the same opponents 5 days later.

In fact, I'd call it cheating. But that's the Leeds team for you, isn't it.

Tell you what, though. It'll make for an interesting atmosphere on Friday!

Some other facts

1. The panels finding is simply an opinion
2. That panel included a former Hull FC player
3. They still found him guilty and it necessary to punish him

The panel is also more rugby knowledge than every poster on here and more evidence.

1. Based on fuller evidence than we have.
2. The panel is more than one person.
3. He was guilty of a grade C offence with a good disciplinary record.

Well that's not really true. One of them has no RL experience at all.

1.the evidence they considered is in the report. The only additional evidence wasnt statement by someone with a clear vested interest.
2. Indeed. There was also a former wigan and Wakefield player on that panel.
3.he was found guilty of such an offence. Whether he was in fact guilty of a more serious offence is a matter of opinion.

So Sneyd's been found guilty and given a ban for two games.

McGuire isnt injured & fit to play this weekend.

Why are Leeds fans STILL whinging?

Yes it is, the panel as a whole does, unless you know some posters with more knowledge of rugby than the two highly experienced professional RL players.

Who is P Charlsworth anyway?

They don't put a protective boot on just for a laugh, and being named in the 19 is absolutely no guarantee of involvement come Friday.

The reason I'm still 'whinging' is that I care about the welfare of Rugby League players. I whinged when Isaac Luke got away with it on Rangi Chase, I whinge about it when forwards are allowed free reign to shoulder charge half backs in the spine long after the ball has gone, I whinge about it whenever the disciplinary have the chance to protect players by hitting offenders with hefty punishments and instead let them off with a gentle slap on the wrist.

If you're happy with the idea of your half backs career being ended by an identical challenge and the perpetrator only having to sit out two games then that's fine. I'm not. I don't care who the victim is, even if it's a Wigan player, and I don't care who the guilty party is, if it was Hardaker or Sir Kev himself I'd say the same. These things need to be nipped in the bud, and downgrading the offence and then giving the minimum allowable ban under that band is not going to do that.

Bit dramatic. he's been found guilty and banned. I'm sure if it was as bad as you and Brian Mac make out, then it would have been a hefty ban. Just wasn't that bad, get over it.

McGuire is fine. He's in the 19. Chill out.

Doubt it, the guy in C1 who heel hooked an opponent and near enough ripped his leg in half somehow only got 10 games.

The RFL have shown they have no interest in properly punishing ankle twisting appropriately or players welfare by issuing such lenient bans.

Watch the clip again, if you genuinely don't think it's that bad you need glasses.



Yes, because everybody who gets named in the 19 always plays. Idiot.

Look, quit the BS. The whole things getting tiresome. I've never known so many people to live in a fantasy world and either just make stuff up or simply show an amazing amount of ignorance by knowingley repeat incorrect hearsay.

There was one picture of Danny McGuire taken after the game. It was around 1.5 hours after full time. What's obvious in the picture (the full picture) is that he is wearing a protective boot and on crutches. Now some sad, sick individual decided to cut off the lower half of the picture so as to remove from view the crutches and the boot, and sneakily make out he was 'posing' for photographs. He was probably approached and asked for a photograph while hobbling back to his transport.

Also, protective boots and crutches are frequently seen on Super League players when they injure and foot/ankle. The idea is to prevent further damage caused by putting pressure on the foot/ankle.

Danny McGuire, after the intial injury would have been assessed rigorously by medical staff. When pressure was taken off the leg, adrenaline had subsided etc further testing would have been done. By this point, and if certain moment could be done of the foot/ankle they could have concluded that there was not Infact a break. There still however, could be ligament damage etc hence the boot/crutches.

The simple fact is, Sneyd actioned a pretty horrendous challenge which quite easily could have caused serious damage. Brian McDermott's statement was one of anger and protectiveness of one of his key (irrelevant) players. Perfectly understandable, and most SL coaches would have reacted the same.

Some of you need to sort your lives out.

Why you getting personal Jim? Just a message board mate, calm down.

Nope, not as bad as you make out. Seems like the people who matter at the RFL also thought the same. Oh well. Keep baying for more blood, I'm sure it'll change their decision.

Really? Not everyone in the 19 plays? Well that's news to me Jim. Could have sworn each team had a six man bench this year.

Brian McDermott's substitution (or lack of) policy is a mysterious thing

Exactly this.

Was waiting to hear their reasoning behind just 2 games and was expecting something along the lines of how Motu Tony described it or Sneyd pleaded guilty.

That they disagree with their explaination and agree it had the potential to cause SERIOUS injury and they've downgraded and given it 2 is farcical.

It's not the first time this year a charge has been downgraded either. They really need to look at the system because it appears the match review panel and the disciplinary are on two completely different wavelengths with the disciplinary seemingly determined in most cases to ban players for as few games as possible unless you're a serial offender.

If referees are the ones who enforce the rules and penalise the foul play then why aren't they the ones to judge the seriousness of it in terms of how many games someone should get? Having former players on the panel people thought would mean a better understanding of the game, whereas it just means they seemingly have sympathy for players and 'accept' things as part and parcel of the game.

Agree re the panel. You see it regularly on the TV, ex-players sympathising with current ones up in front of the disciplinary.

If it's a 3-man panel would it be better to have an ex referee, an ex-player and an ex-coach on the panel?