He must have discovered where the RFL approved printers of Sean O'Loughlin's "get out of a ban free" cards are located.

This kind of sanctimonious attitude is so frustrating. The whataboutery cries are entirely valid as our players do nothing the players of other clubs don't. They just get worse outcomes and aren't treated the same. There is an injustice this season and it's because of the Knowles appeal. Getting the penalty notice removal overturned for Lees won't help either, it'll only make things worse.



If a St Helens player did the Wright tackle on Ritson, it's a 2 game ban. If a St Helens player hit Lomax off the ball like Sneyd did, it's a 2 game ban. If a St Helens player did what Arthur Romano did against Castleford, it'd be a Grade D and referred to the tribunal, at least. If a St Helens player did the hip drop in the Warrington game, it's a Grade D. Bentley's challenge etc...



Do you see where this is going? There were FOUR worse incidents (at least) than what Lees was banned for in one weekend, yet Lees gets the most severe charge and ban. It's beyond pathetic. All the shouts that he deliberately hit him with a swinging arm and smashed him with loads of force too? Are you all blind? He just put his arm out, he catches him, but he's instinctively trying to stop him grabbing the ball he's just dropped, he isn't smacking him round the face in frustration. He doesn't draw the arm back and there's no projection into the player either, he just puts it out and catches him. Wright isn't remotely bothered by it, he's sat on his ankle with his foot pointing the wrong way as it got caught in the turf, he doesn't even notice the contact from Lees.



Rugby league is a brutal contact sport and the margins for error in the timing of tackles is infinitesimally small. We're not an outlier in disciplinary terms as people make out. The MRP is incompetent and their level of neutrality is entirely questionable.



Still blaming everything on the Knowles overturn.

He's not though is he. This latest one he put an arm out and caught him, but there was no swinging arm or real force in it. It's not a grade D incident. The other stuff he's been up before the committee for, he's largely been completely innocent of. He's got two referrals and yellow cards for 'high' tackles that were in the middle of the chest for example.



You mock the stance that Saints fans feel we're hard done to, but you can't sensibly argue with the evidence of that. Lees challenge wasn't the worst high shot in the game, Wright's on Ritson was, no charge. 'But it was off the ball Gov!' you all cry, well what about the Catalans player who got off completely with clobbering the Cas player around the head off the ball? That was significantly worse than what Lees did and he plays this weekend.



The late hit from Sironen? What a grub, what a monster. There were FOUR worse ones that that in the Saints v Salford game alone. Makinson for us (Which they picked up), plus Sneyd on Lomax (which was awful) and Croft on Lomax, which they didn't. Croft on Lomax is an interesting one. He knocks him to the ground after he passes to Sironen for his try. Contact is high, with the shoulder, there's no wrap and the passer is left flat on the floor. No charge, no ban, nothing on his record. Sironen wasn't late, wasn't high, wrapped his arms and took his opponent to ground safely. Sironen gets banned.



There are examples like this every single time a Saints player is banned. Lomax cops them every single week and there is never anything for them.



I appreciate it's fun for you because we're getting these, but it's not hard to see that there's a big difference in how we're treated by the MRP than any other club. They tried to get Lees banned for longer too by removing the penalty notice, meaning his ban could be for more than 2-3 games the grade suggests, which is unbelievable. Luckily the independent tribunal laughed at that and agreed with Saints and overturned it, giving him the lowest ban possible, but we've no doubt made things worse by doing that.

One of the first things they teach you as a History student is ‘never argue with a conspiracy theorist as you will lose’. So don’t take him on, he will win.

The version I heard was “never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience”.

Saddened has just gone full on crackpot.

This is the approach you have to take, because if you looked at the evidence, you'd agree, and you can't bring yourself to do that. Look at the incidents I've mentioned and tell me where I'm wrong.

All teams get these type of results, but explain how Josh. Maguires 7 match ban fits into your thesis. Or how we have had so many bans this year but not done half the moaning your lot have with you as the bandleader.

I don’t understand how, if you genuinely believe there is a conspiracy, you can carry on watching the sport

In any event you have been peddling the conspiracy for a few seasons now albeit in different guises. Of course even the inept RL surely couldn’t be so bad that despite their best efforts to thwart you you have managed 4 in a row.

If your argument is that there are inconsistencies in the disciplinary then you are correct as there are and there always were. If you believe the inconsistencies are a deliberate target on St Helens RFC then you’re in cloud cuckoo land and we’ll leave it there.



I might put my tin hat on suggest that they’ve got it in for us with McGuires ban and the RFL making us play Catalans away in the cup rather than Halifax. They probably made Mikaele homesick as well.

In the course of a season every team has players banned for seemingly innocuous challenges or for things that leave us scratching our heads. Conversely there are always the things we all agree we got away with that should've been highlighted. It's just the nature of the sport and it's disciplinary process. You're just more aware of it of late because you're going out of your way to notice everything to support your theory. When people feel hard done by, this is natural. When we lose, we may go looking for all the small things that might have changed the outcome, we hardly ever acknowledge/notice the things that fell in our favour.



When your horrible lot are walking out onto the Old Pitch in October this will be long forgotten. Take your tin foil hat off and chill.

Take the bans on the chin, and stop all the pointless whinging every Wednesday.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The extremely scary thing is that on redvee Sad one comes across as one of the more reasonable posters!!

. I was reading the Salford forum this week seeing how they were getting on with their fundraising thing(and hoping for some dupree gossip)and they'd obviously just played saints. Quite a few of their fans said they'd rather win nothing if being successful turned them into fans like saints have got.

Why are you bleeting on at us for?

I'm sure I speak for a lot of Wire fans, I'm really not bothered if all or none of your lot get banned or not.

We all know that the MRP 'rules' are in pencil on the back of a fag packet, most fans just accept it but Saints seem to think they're on some kind of crusade for evidence of conspiracy.

My view exactly. The topic is as dull as ditch water.

Ignored my own advice! Let them bleat, who cares?

Maybe we could have a thread dedicated to "Saints Disciplinary Conspiracy Theory" and let Saddened go nuts in it and others swerve it.

I sympathise, but also like having Saddened's rants close at hand as counter evidence to the recurring claims that he is a reasonable and fair minded poster, when of course he is anything but.

Not done himself any favours with constant Knowles as caused the problem getting a ban overturned, he just won’t let it go.

Knowles has caused the disciplinary another problem, how many matches to give him for that tackle last night

Lost the argument in the second sentence there pal. That's going some even for you.

If Knowles gets a refer to tribunal today be ready for the alarm on your mobile device to sound and head straight to your nearest bomb shelter, ear defenders will be supplied if Saddened turns up in your zone

I must admit that, from the comments I've seen, even Saints fans are starting to realise the problem is with Knowles, not the disciplinary panel or the referees. I'm also interested in what comes out: not because I thought it was the very worst tackle I've ever seen, but because I'm interested in what kind of message they are going to give to a guy who can't complete a single full game after suspension without belting someone round the head.

You just don't get it do you? Just because he sticks his arm out at head height, the opposition player has a duty of care to avoid his arm and NOT to wilfully attack the arm with his head.



Just imagine the damage that could be done to poor Morgan's arm by someone's head remaining on their shoulders! I mean, if they ran into his arm hard enough they could even cause a tingling sensation or light bruising - why isn't the disciplinary committee clamping down on these players' vicious attacks on Morgan's outstretched arm?



It's not fair I tell you, that poor boy needs the refs to look after him better

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... view-panel

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61 ... view-panel

1 match for Drinkwater. That probably means Mata'utia at half back but then who comes in a centre? Minikin, or does he take a risk with Wrench?

Play Minikin, with Wrench as substitute.



Wrench definitely needs to play though, to give him some game time, the next reserve game is too far into the future.