1 game for Sam.

Pretty much Nathan Browns comments prior to the game at our place last year.

1 game is fine we only play them in the next game the rest is not something that matters to us (directly).

That'll do me



No sam or Joel vs Hudds

Thank you rfl



Did Godwin get banned for running and punching schifcofske

If so how long for

I dont care what team they bring, I want us to win.

I honestly dont know if we will, I know we can, I know they can...game of the round? Hell yes.

I can see Sam appealing and having his 1 game lifted. It's not like things like these never happen. I don't know how one panel of judges see something different to another panel.

were did the news of these bans come from ???theres nothing yet on rfl disciplinary

He was charged with a Grade B offence the sentence for that is 1 or 2 game(s) ban, he got the lighter of the options available to the RFL

Can't see the point in appealing this unless he wants to change the sentence to the other option they have open to them.

[urlhttp://www.superleague.co.uk/article.php?id=21380[/url

TBF so far this season appeals have generally been given the short sharp and the player had their appeal deposit (or whatever it is called) retained. We'll have to see though.

Has Sam Tomkins got an exceptional disciplinary record, that allows him t avoid a ban when he runs to an incident with the sole purpose of punching someone?

If he has then truly the Wigan Rugby Gods, are truly amazing.

What did Mason get for running into a brawl to throw a punch a few seasons back at Wigan? Wasn't it 3 games?

The RFL already took that into account with Radford, which is why he ended up just being fined this evening. I have a sneaking suspicion, judging from appeal results so far, that the RFL have decided that so many successful appeals in recent years makes them look like a bunch of clowns and it's time that it was stopped.

Exactly but Radford's offence wasn't a case of him running into a brawl with the sole purpose of punching someone, and related to a judgement call about the amount of pressure he put on an opponents joint.

The fact he had a exceptional disciplinary record meant he was charged with a lesser outcome as the above incident is subjective, whereas S Tomkins is a fact.

I'd be surprised if they attempted to appeal under these circumstances and risk a 2 match ban which means he would also miss the Wire game.

3 matches last season but tbf it was deserved as there wasn't actually a brawl going on at the time and it was pre-emptive action on Mase's part. Also he hasn't exactly got the best disciplinary record having previously got a ban for lamping jamie Peacock in a pre-season match.

Not that game, i'm talking about the season before where he ran in to a brawl to throw a punch, also at Wigan.
3mins 53secs in
[urlhttp://www.superleague.co.uk/video/player.php?id=20096[/url

And this exceptional record would include this would it ?

[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2217[/url

Sometimes they just don't help themselves do they ?

It would seem it does include that. I don't know all the details of his disciplinary record though, perhaps when you look at the entire picture instead of one incident in isolation the reference to his previous record will make more sense.

Quote ="PONNER"Not that game, i'm talking about the season before where he ran in to a brawl to throw a punch, also at Wigan. 3mins 53secs in [urlhttp://www.superleague.co.uk/video/player.php?id=20096[/url'" I'm fairly sure he got off without a ban for that one. Wasn't that the one where he was charged with striking but Paul Anderson pointed out that the RFL define striking as hitting with the fist or forearm and what Mason actually did was tackle the player and he was only trying to help out his team mate? Edit: yep he appears to have got off for that one. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?860

Quote ="PONNER"Not that game, i'm talking about the season before where he ran in to a brawl to throw a punch, also at Wigan. 3mins 53secs in [urlhttp://www.superleague.co.uk/video/player.php?id=20096[/url'" I'm fairly sure he got off without a ban for that one. Wasn't that the one where he was charged with striking but Paul Anderson pointed out that the RFL define striking as hitting with the fist or forearm and what Mason actually did was tackle the player and he was only trying to help out his team mate? Edit: yep he appears to have got off for that one. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?860

In fairness to Radford he doesn't appear to have had many scrapes with the disciplinary panel, but you can hardly pass judgement in one case by describing it as "A virtual assault" and then not ban him, because of an exceptional previous record.

FWIW I have no problem with the bans for both Sam and Joel, I just wish that a consistent approach is taken when punishments are dished out.

all that fans ask for is consistancy. whether it is good or bad it doesnt really matter, as long as every player is treated exactly the same then you will get no arguments

You're making judgements on the RFL's view of a players disciplinary record without knowing that record in detail. All you know for sure is that it isn't an unblemished record. Without knowing Radford's record in detail it is impossible for you to claim that the RFL are being consistent or otherwise. And consistent with whom? It's not going to be consistent with Keith Mason say, who would now probably get 2 games if he'd committed the offence Radford did knowing that he has a bit more previous. So you need to know all the details about every player being compared and the RFL's subsequent decision. You then also have to take into account the particular incident and it's severity. Players aren't the same, they don't have the same previous. Not all high tackles are the same in severity, intent etc. You can't just apply a blanket judgement.

The RFL do make mistakes, for sure, and there is plenty of room for improvement but I think so far this season they have shown signs of improvement on the disciplinary front and in particular in the area of upholding decisions on appeal.

MASSIVE over reaction....

yes you are right as the pie eaters won't dare mess with the Giants you've tried it in Scotland but you won't try it again

I have absolutely no idea what you are gibbing on about....