Yes.

I'd feel more convinced about Powell's effort being accidental if he didn't have form for some pretty nasty challenges in the past.

Given that mind-reading is still beyond the capabilities of science intent can only EVER be estimated.

Unless you plan on water-boarding players or wiring electrodes to their genitals.

But then I guess they'll ALL say they are guilty.

Which I gather will be Wigan's new tackle technique for next season.

Sounds more like one of Wane's training techniques

They probably watch the Gareth Hock training videos.

No charge - MRP ruled the contact with the eyes to be accidental.

Lauaki got sin bin sufficient, so at least they're being consistently lenient.

so it's now alright to gouge even though you pretended to not mean to do it sir

Maybe it's only gouging if you use a spoon.

Wow, I'm staggered. Sin bin sufficient for eye gouging. Heard it all now!

But it's Wigan so surely nothing should surprise you!!

i think Lauaki's worse, a whole lot worse, can't believe that is sin bin sufficient!

That's cos you've blindly bought in to the ridiculous hyperbole of the Sky commentary team. All Lauaki did was facepalm the guy. No dragging across the face, no gouging, no blow. Yes it is not on, and a penalty was appropriate, and I would not even be against the rather harsh sinbinning but for the fact that, if that's a binning, then why don't we see players sinbinned for "facials" as Stevo describes them all the time?

There was an at least as bad incident by Widnes at 55'30" yet nobody said a word.

You would be less staggered if you could read. The disciplinary said sin bin sufficient precisely on the grounds that it was NOT gouging. (Which it wasn't). You are of course entitled to disagree and think it WAS gouging, or even attempted murder, if you want, but it's a bit dotty to claim he was found to have gouged, when they actually said the exact opposite.

I think you are wrong there. Lauaki puts his hand on Dixon's face/eyes and pulls him over his body. You can clearly see Dixon go backwards. If his fingers were in his eyes (and it looks to me as if they were plus the fact that Dixon needed treatment to his eyes tells you they were) then the motion which Lauaki used to pull Dixon over his body would put undue pressure on his eyes and imo is a very dangerous thing to do whether it was accidental or not.

To say 10 mins in the sin bin is sufficient is sending the wrong message out.

there is no reason at all why a player should have his fingers anywhere near an opponents eyes, never mind actually moving them, whether there was an actual gouge or not, the tackled player had been put to ground and there was no reason whatsoever for hands to be near the eyes!

Incredible really. The RFL need to take a good long look at the impartiality of it's committees and the outcomes of the process. How Powell can escape a ban is beyond me. Even if you take a mile long leap and conclude he didn't intend to do it (!) you've still got to ban him for the outcome (A clear gouge to the eyes) and call it reckless. I mean, how can you accidentally gouge someone? You've no right to be touching the head in the first place?

I find it incredible that you can talk about impartiality.

Exactly. As I've said on the Hull KR board it was dangerous play and could have resulted in a very serious injury. No need for fingers to be in/around the eyes whatsoever. Need to clamp down on it before somebody gets seriously hurt.

Powell wasn't sin binned.

What about an eye poke? You've no right to be touching the head in the first place?

Again, nice use of the word impartial there. Saints fan complaining that a Wigan player wasn't brought to justice whilst ignoring a much worse one the day after? Well I never...

Big difference between an accidental eye poke in a tackle and grabbing a player by the face after the tackle and sticking your fingers in his eye. Bizarre decision by the judiciary but par for the course really. Given up trying to find any logic or consistency in RL penalty systems! www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 7524930695

Big difference between an accidental eye poke in a tackle and grabbing a player by the face after the tackle and sticking your fingers in his eye. Bizarre decision by the judiciary but par for the course really. Given up trying to find any logic or consistency in RL penalty systems! www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 7524930695

Apparently, it was Lineham's 'evasive action and fend' that forced Powell's fingers into his eye, so the contact was accidental; that being the case, why didn't he immediately remove his hand from where it accidentally ended up?

As far as I can see, accidental or not, he still poked him in the eye - that should warrant some sanction, if for no other reason than sending a broader message about protecting players from the risk of entirely avoidable injuries.

You could make an argument for the Powell one being accidental. He's reached out to make a tackle, got done by good footwork and ended up catching the player in the face.

The Lauaki one is an absolute mystery. Even if you accept that the ends of his fingers don't go into the tackled player's eyes, he's still attempted to use his face as a lever to turn him over and put the tackled player at risk of injury as a result. If he'd done that with an arm or a leg, he would have been looking at a ban, so why not doing it with the head?

The MRP have probably reviewed the Powell incident first, and having seen that and decided it wasn't worth a charge thought they had to be consistent, completely missing the massive difference between the two incidents.

So many conspiracy theories.

It could be what you put. Might also be that I saw the Powell one, and didn't see the other one