Nope,and niether should the Club..Goodnight Jamie.

No surprise based on his disciplinary record with the RFL(on that can anyone remember a bad Acton tackle - anyone able to put down what he's been banned for this season as I can't remember anything where he has broke a nose, knocked teeth out or concussed players - yet he has seen his team mates recieve these injuries with no bans for those that caused it...).
RE: 'What if' scenarios, if we are going down that road then expect a lot of 'ambulance chasing' lawyers to be involved when players retire as in essence the sport will find it hard to define 99% of the actions on a sports field as not having potential to cause injury(accidental or otherwise).

Who was on the disciplinary tonight?

Absolutely the game is tough enough- and yes any player Could potentially be injured- so why would any player grab another who had appeared to sustain a head injury in that manner - But Greg bird was "sparked out" on the floor as far as Acton was concerned. Watching on tv it appeared that way to me.
What ifs is exactly what should be looked at - the welfare of players should be absolutely paramount- yes they are paid- bu they do it for entertainment!

HHJ Chris Batty, Graeme Hallas & Russ Bridge

This.

The Watcher believes that the club must fine Acton the maximum amount they can.

Inked in as sub. for million pound game?

While you are obviously quite correct on your potential for further injury comments, I have to contest the "sparked out" remark !

IMHO Bird was never "sparked out", he was moving, he had both arms in the air & it is a widely held rumour that Bird told Acton to F.O while prostrate on the floor !
Furthermore, if Bird was "sparked out" from a head injury/concussion, why did he return to be influential & play better than he had pre 'injury' & why exactly was he allowed to return. I feel that the answer may be that he was 'NEVER' injured & was trying to deflect from his late hit on our kicker & 6 Ben Reynolds who was indeed 'actually injured.

There can be no denying that Acton deserved a ban, however how does Actons 9 SL match ban possibly compare to the 10 match ban served by Ben Flower for the outrageous & callous attack on Lance Hohaia who suffered very 'real' injury as a result ?

I dont think that many Leigh fans would be too aggrieved to see Acton receive 6 or 7 matches but 9 compared to Flowers 10 + 1 WCC is to be quite frank, ludicrous.

Definitely don't agree! I commend him for 'looking out' for his halfback if however, he has perhaps gone about it in a clumsy way. I've said before he is not receiving the same 'justice' as some of the more villainous players in the game, (I include Greg Bird in These). Jamie is the only Leigh player who would get into every other Super League team so to release him, would be unwise. I know supporters are frustrated by his continually suspensions however, he is a tremendous young British prop forward and I personally hope the club stands by him.

Who told you, Sky Television? Rugby League Express?

Totally agree Ste. BTW - This decision MUST be appealed against, and the RFL must be challenged with the best sports lawyer the club can get their hands on. What i find disturbing though, is some so called Leigh fans seem to welcome the outcome and would offload him - Well I'll tell you now, they're NOT Leigh fans at all. We'll be playing tick and pass in tutu's next.

The only thing 'cracked' in this incident is Ben Reynolds Nose after Greg Birds challenge! Nobody seems to be interested in Reynolds, I'd love to know if Ben thought it was a late high shot from 'Lazerus' !
I can 'Imagine' all kind of scenarios, lets say for instance that in the forthcoming 8s, Gaz Hock decides to challenge Luke Walsh in the same way as Bird did Reynolds and breaks Walsh's Nose! can you 'Imagine' what Sky would make of that or indeed, the rest of RL world?
I'm not sure which team you support however, I know your Coach would soon add Jamie to your squad, given half a chance

But is that a consideration that the panel consistently use? If so, how come bad cannonball tackles are only getting 1 match bans as opposed to 3 or 4?

hi Cokey,

When I suggested offloading him, it was partly tongue-in-cheek - suggesting that if he played elsewhere, his 'crimes' may be viewed more favourably. I have always maintained that he can be a top English prop, but to get there, his stupid behaviour has to be controlled. And most of it is stupid, rather than violent. He had to be suspended this time, because his actions MIGHT have had serious consequences. But nine matches is ridiculous, when he didn't actually injure the player - as indeed was his four match ban for pushing Flanagan in the back last season. (Ratchford pushed a retreating Leigh player in the back, two weeks ago, and wasn't even cited) I don't dispute that he invites disciplinary action for his misdemeanours, but it is infuriating to see other players get away with similar, and some times worse, crimes.

Take his ban for tripping, late in the Wigan game. No question that he was guilty, and deserved the suspension. Yet Richie Myler has been found guilty, by the same disciplinary process, seven, yes SEVEN, times in just over two years - and still hasn't been banned for it. So, despite his lack of discipline, I will always believe Acton is being treated differently to other players.

However, my doubt remains - can we really afford to have a good player suspended for half of each season and, if he moved to Leeds for example, would his indiscipline be treated more leniently, by the disciplinary process?

No, he was spark out as far as you're concerned, as far as Acton was concerned he'd hit his team mate late and only he'll know what state he saw Bird in.

It was a stupid thing to do, as would rather he concentrate on knocking people onto the floor, rather than grabbing people already on the floor. But thought 6-7 games would be a fairer reflection.

They probably don't visit Red Hall quite as much however, none are Angels and Hilly got clean away with elbowing one player then Head Butting another in the Widnes game! What would Jamie have got?
I saw Sims deliberately stand on a players hand! he got one/two matches? What would Jaimie have got?
Walmsley too has been up this season (cant remember the incident

)
The others have all been up too!
In Jamie's case he does NOT get treated the same and, Jamie's 'offences' are for far less serious incidents too!
p.s. Glad to see back on this Forum Harold

Yes i get all that Alan for sure,but it's time the RFL were challenged for their inconsistent punishment and unjustified bans given to Jamie. I don't condone for one minute his silly behaviour, but to receive all these bans when he hasn't even hurt anyone is getting on my T**S.

Me too, but you know what the RFL are like.

Definitely!

Lewis Galbraith, of Rochdale recently picked up an eight match ban, after a drawn out case, for Grade F "unacceptable behaviour". He appealed, and the ban was withdrawn completely. This one was about what Galbraith said/didn't say. Witnesses were adamant that they heard him say something, but an element of doubt was brought into the appeal, and the suspension withdrawn.

Let's do it.

Its a good job you don't support Catalan then! According to our friend 'Alan' Richie Myler has been charged with Tripping on [useven [/u occasions in the last two years and, he's yet to be banned for it

Seeing Jamie's (outrageous) Nine Game Ban, I wonder what a real Court would have decided on the 'Could have' 'might have' evidence? usually the Law asks has anyone been harmed or injured etc...... ?

Seeing Jamie's (outrageous) Nine Game Ban, I wonder what a real Court would have decided on the 'Could have' 'might have' evidence? usually the Law asks has anyone been harmed or injured etc...... ?

Also, we had the farce over Tony Gigot's alleged exasperated two- finger gesture to the touch judge. The officials were adamant that it was two fingers, the review panel thought so too, but Gigot maintains he stuck three fingers up at the touch judge and that introduced the element of doubt, allowing him to get away with it!

I hasten to add that I don't think Acton should be exonerated, but am sure that nine matches is too much.

=#FF0000Quite right Alan. Also Gigot got a 2 year ban for "inappropriate behaviour" towards an anti-doping officer. So because he didn't fail a drugs test, it was reduced to 3 months. Correct me if i'm wrong here, but he got a 2 year ban for "inappropriate behaviour" towards an anti-doping officer. , nothing to do with any outcome of a drugs test. So when the test was clear, it was, Oh ok we'll take 21 months off that ban now. Unbelievable.