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.

As soon as Vaughan did that tackle I thought he will get a ban. It was dangerous. No point at all in reviewing the decision ... unless you want the ban increasing. Nothing to do with Wigan/Saints/Leeds. It deserved 2 games or more. I wasn't surprised that the Cameron Smith ban was overturned either.

But we have.

Of course we have and I understand that`s what you alluded to, but I can`t recall St Helens being lumbered with a frivolous increase, when they frequently appeal against a ban on one of their players.

Maybe the Sad One can enlighten me.

I don’t think they have or they would still be bleating about the injustice of it all, I like to think we are better than that!

They are still apoplectic over 1 refereeing decision from about 5 years ago…

"apoplectic" ... that's another good word.

Readers Digest “Improve your word power” is to blame Smiffy!

Do you read it or swallow it? It is all very impressive & puts our forum above most of the others.

Actually the odd touch of whimsicality*does set us apart


*have I gone too far yet?
Probably should be “whimsy” but I’m feeling reckless

Anything released for this week yet? I sort of expect Currie to cop a ban since it's cup week, we're playing that lot, and the referee didn't even deem it worth penalising on Friday. RFL logic!

Here we go... https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... view-panel Currie got a £250 fine for something the ref didn't even think was worth a penalty. Ah well, he'll recoup that by getting Man of the Match* on Sunday! * Why do they insist on calling it 'Player of the match' even on men's games? Does Konrad Hurrell identify as a woman?

Here we go... https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... view-panel Currie got a £250 fine for something the ref didn't even think was worth a penalty. Ah well, he'll recoup that by getting Man of the Match* on Sunday! * Why do they insist on calling it 'Player of the match' even on men's games? Does Konrad Hurrell identify as a woman?

Indeed - but it’s still ‘man of steel’ not ‘player of brass’ (or whichever alloy you identify with). Actually, come to think of it, player of brass just makes you sound like the horn section…

Quote ="matt_wire"Here we go... https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... view-panel Currie got a £250 fine for something the ref didn't even think was worth a penalty. Ah well, he'll recoup that by getting Man of the Match* on Sunday! * Why do they insist on calling it 'Player of the match' even on men's games? Does Konrad Hurrell identify as a woman?'" Don’t understand what the issue is with “player of the match” it’s the best payer, not the best man (which could be based on looks/physique etcetc

Quote ="matt_wire"Here we go... https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... view-panel Currie got a £250 fine for something the ref didn't even think was worth a penalty. Ah well, he'll recoup that by getting Man of the Match* on Sunday! * Why do they insist on calling it 'Player of the match' even on men's games? Does Konrad Hurrell identify as a woman?'" Don’t understand what the issue is with “player of the match” it’s the best payer, not the best man (which could be based on looks/physique etcetc

It is because Man Of The Match is trademarked, and when the trademark got purchased by a new owner in 2012 they started to properly enforce it.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... view-panel

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... view-panel