Except putting it on report and giving a penalty

So one bad tackle has now made ferres a thug?? Give over

I very much doubt it was deliberate, Ferres has never struck me as been a dirty player at all. Terrible technique though and deserves a sizeable ban. Had the McKinnon incident never occurred I would expect him to get 3 or 4 matches, but given what has happened I think they will make an example of him. Could even be a record Superleague ban I reckon.

It could have very easily been another McKinnon, not only did Lomax land on his head but then Ferres landed on Lomax's head while he was still in a really bad position. He's very lucky to walk away unhurt.

And the rfl found no case to answer. Your point is?

And the rfl found no case to answer. Your point is?

But no red card as today, yet he was arguably in a better position to see the tackle.

Burns went on to have a great game when he should have been sat in the dugout

The RFL do some illogical things, how there's no case to answer is one of them, dMight have had something to do with Hudgel gobbling off about the disciplinery
It was a spear tackle as malicious and dangerous as that performed by Ferres, same ref but no red card.

brough might get banned but it should be reduced for being factually correct

Is it up to him to prove that?

Why, was he saying it to you?

Idiot

Im glad that hudds went out by way of a dodgy decision given the nature of that tackle.

Regards

King James

FFS this sort of tackle has gone on for years and been dealt with either on field or by the panel. Just because of the unfortunate incident in the NRL, people are making out that a spear tackle should be treated worse than attempted murder. Roll the clock back 4 weeks and I bet there wouldn't be a thread on spear tackles in SL. The incident in the NRL was unfortunate but we shouldn't sanitize the game because of 1 incident. At this rate we'll be watching touch rugby in 10 years. Everyone needs to calm down and put things into perspective.

And as i've said elsewhere, once the RFL have made an example of Ferres (and the tackle does deserve it btw i'm not defending him) the next 'bad one' will be back to on report and a 2 match ban on review in a couple of weeks.

And anyway Ferres has been named in Huddersfield's 19 this week...

Well done for the most ridiculous hyperbolic comment on the thread.

Seriously I challenge you to quote one post where anyone has made out that Ferres should be punished more than this

Discretionary Life Sentence
This sentence may be imposed for those over the age of 21 as the maximum penalty for a serious offence, e.g. manslaughter, attempted murder, rape, armed robbery or arson. It is imposed instead of a determinate sentence where the sentencing court thinks that the offender's risk of committing another serious offence will continue for an indeterminate period.


Imprisonment (or Detention) for Public Protection (IPP)
The new indeterminate sentence of Imprisonment (or Detention) for Public Protection will apply to offenders who are convicted of a serious offence (that is a specified sexual or violent offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or more) and who are considered by the court to pose a "significant risk to members of the public, of serious harm."



So come on own up who said Ferres should get more than a life sentence. Or in fact did we just say he should get a long ban from playing, not even stopping his income.

The sentences available was up to 8 matches. I'm assuming he got a reduction for pleading guilty, as really it was the perfect spear tackle, he could not have got it more right.

But feel free to think everyone is over reacting and a spear is just part and parcel of the game.

It's political correctness gone maaaaad!

Here is every opinion on sentence offered on this thread:



Could you just clarify who you had in mind, as I'm a bit puzzled.

Five games then.

If the incident in Aus hadn’t happened I don’t believe there would be all this going on.

Praise the lord it’s been overshadowed by drop goal gate

.

5 games is very lenient in my opinion. Whilst I don't think there was any intention on Ferres' part, I'm not sure what kind of tackle could put a player in more danger than that one.

To be fair there isn't a standard ban, they fairly took into account the mitigation, which in Ferres' case was considerable. I think he's been a bit lucky too.

I dread to think what the outcome of that tackle had to be to get the full 8 games.

Yeah I agree, and a bit like the NRL disciplinary at the moment there isn't going to be a ban length that pleases everyone. I still think that it was about the most dangerous thing a tackler could realistically do in a game, in which case 5 games isn't enough in my opinion.

I think there must have been an element of his good record saving him a bit. If it was Gareth Hock it would have been a nailed on 8 games.

Nah Hock would be out for 2 years. It's mandatory in the RFL rule book now, under sub-section n (for numbskull).


I was thinking 7 or 8, but he did plead guilty so you would need to knock a match or 2 off for that. Plus he got a red card, so you could knock another match off for time served.

I know it was not a full match, but one side got the advantage of him not playing, so you could see it as 8 games with 2 knocked off for the guilty plea.