landed on his head and neck, he gave the referee a decision to make. it was daft.

but so was all of that opening stint by vaughan, worst 14 minutes he's had in just over a year.

Totally disagree re “bent” comment. I see this on other forums (especially you know where) and find it ridiculous. The only issue that totally baffled me was Harry Smith not being banned.
Vaughan was always going to get banned, no surprise at all.

We should definitely be appealing it to get it reduced - 2 games is very harsh when Smith got none. If we can't get that reduced then we really need to change our representatives.

The incident with Tyler Dupree in the Good Friday game, when he deliberately leads with the elbow should have been a hefty ban yet he wasn`t in that instance.

Double post.

Leeds appealing Cam Smith ban.

We've been successful in recalling Wood from Bradford, which eases the situation for the Leeds game somewhat. There are, however, a few players carrying niggles. https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... ds-rhinos/

We've been successful in recalling Wood from Bradford, which eases the situation for the Leeds game somewhat. There are, however, a few players carrying niggles. https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... ds-rhinos/

Would love to know what exactly Bullock needs to work on, games I have seen him in he does better than some of current forwards.

Yeah I've always thought of him as OK, spends too much time on treatment table (not his fault) but effort in games was fine I'd put him up as good as Philbin, but behind Vaughan, Harrison and Musgrove, but challenging for 17 with Philbin and Wood.

Bullock looks great with ball in hand but I think think Burgess is after a lot more work out of the middles off the ball. The last
few weeks Harrison and Philbin have put in quite a few lung busting runs to put pressure on kickers. It is that extra effort stuff. One thing with Bullock is that he is very North to South. He sort of struggles with lateral movement in defence. You notice it when he is defending and the opposition have passed the ball along the line he sort of relaxes rather than continues to push across.
You can sometimes see hesitation from Bullock when there are already 2 defenders in the tackle he is weighing it up, should I put the effort in as third man or should I just go back to the line. I reckon Burgess would prefer the just get stuck in and still get back to the line
think it is those sort of areas where he just needs to do those little things a bit more often rather than just once every now and again. He is a big unit but rather than trying to conserve energy might be better if he ran around like a mad man for 12-15 mins rather than try to pace yourself to do 22 mins.
When it comes to players playing in the middle of the park I guess Burgess knows what should be expected.

Good post.

Overall I like Bullock as a bench prop but I'll definitely keep an eye on him next time out to see whether he can find his inner 'Roy'.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... l,-april-2

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... l,-april-2

Leeds successful on Cam Smith appeal what's people's thoughts?

He is not Paul Vaughan and he does not play for Warrington.

We ‘seem’ utterly pathetic/toothless when it comes to the disciplinary. Have we ever challenged anything and come out of it on favourable terms?

Leeds are terrible and you can beat them even with your front row missing. Smith had to be pardoned though, the decision to sanction him in the first place was embarrassing. Even the grade A he ended up with is shocking.

Vaughan was always going to be banned. His arm was between the legs when he lifted, lucky the guy landed on his shoulders. can’t see what the problem is with his ban. No need to indulge in Sad One’s “victimisation” theme.

I don't believe in any conspiracy just the wild inconsistencies. I'd be turning up and playing the video of Harry Smith's tip tackle alongside Vaughan's and asking for the justification of Vaughan's 2 game ban when Smith was cleared. Vaughan's tackle looks a lot less dangerous than that of Smith's.

The Smith decision was wrong, doesn’t mean the Vaughan one is.

I agree but surely there's a case based around a (very recent) precedent?

Quote ="ratticusfinch"I agree but surely there's a case based around a (very recent) precedent?'" Burgess has said that they reviewed the footage. I am sure the club would appeal if they thought there was any chance. Quote Warrington will not appeal the suspension handed to Vaughan, which rules him out of next weekend’s Challenge Cup trip to St Helens as well as Friday’s game, after he was cited for the tip tackle on Cesar Rouge which saw him sin-binned. And Burgess says a review of the incident meant there was never any prospect of challenging the Match Review Panel’s ruling. “I don’t think the evidence was in our favour,” he said. “You read the ruling and the letter of the law and it wasn’t really favourable for us. “The Match Review committee probably got it right – if Vaughany had his time again, I daresay he’d do things differently so we’ve just got to take the lesson and move on.”'" https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... ds-rhinos/

Quote ="ratticusfinch"I agree but surely there's a case based around a (very recent) precedent?'" Burgess has said that they reviewed the footage. I am sure the club would appeal if they thought there was any chance. Quote Warrington will not appeal the suspension handed to Vaughan, which rules him out of next weekend’s Challenge Cup trip to St Helens as well as Friday’s game, after he was cited for the tip tackle on Cesar Rouge which saw him sin-binned. And Burgess says a review of the incident meant there was never any prospect of challenging the Match Review Panel’s ruling. “I don’t think the evidence was in our favour,” he said. “You read the ruling and the letter of the law and it wasn’t really favourable for us. “The Match Review committee probably got it right – if Vaughany had his time again, I daresay he’d do things differently so we’ve just got to take the lesson and move on.”'" https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sp ... ds-rhinos/

I saw that and I'm sure they know a lot more than I do. IMO I just believe if Wigan/Saints/Leeds were missing their best prop for a tough game which was to keep them in the hunt for one of the 2 trophies available - they'd have a dig to get it down to 1 game...even if it was a long shot.

I assume they have had advice that an appeal against the decision could well be deemed frivolous which would result in an extra game ban and therefore not worth the risk. I can’t see any way they would risk being without him for 3 games.

I should have added “long shot”=“frivolous”.

Have St Helens ever had a ban increased after a "Frivolous" appeal?

I don`t remember it happening.