SOL tackle deserved more than a one match ban and you know it.

There were stronger aggravating circumstances than mitigating in this case.

If it had been the other way round I would have loved to see the reaction on here (not that Annakin would have only got away with a 1 game ban mind)

He didn't show any of this, he didn't even have the decency to see if Annakin was ok straight after laying him out...

Yes, its all that Wigan bias up at red hall again, you dont need to tell us, we already know that we own the RFL. Rightly so really, the sport would be lost without us. And if the words of yourself "and you know it"

Ah yes, the one that broke Green's eye socket.

Broken Eye socket - 1 match
Concussion - 1 match

Sick of this, im boycotting the sport

I am not suggesting it is Wigan bias, but clearly the punishment in this instance does not fit the crime and if you think it does you are either (a) taking the pee or (b) were on the disciplinary panel that heard the case on Tuesday.

Don't do that, Wigan is the most important team in RL and we need all your fans to ensure the GF and Challenge Cup are sell outs

Very true.

After all, we are most teams biggest attendance every season when they play us. Imagine the lack of income for the smaller clubs if Wigan didnt exist?! Not even worth thinking about.

When a Leeds player was unfortunately injured some years ago during a game, most of our team went over to check on his health and were vilified for doing so.... You just can't win sometimes...

Thanks for that. It adds some clarity to the reasoning for the length of his ban. As for some fans saying that Fielden and Sculthorpe played for Wigan, they don't seem to remember (conveniently) that Danny Sculthorpe also played for Wakefield.
Danny Sculthorpe was actually at the game supporting his state of mind charity, which I guess is more than most of the fans who are attacking the decision were.

www.totalrl.com/chris-annakin-fa ... sidelines/ A one game ban for injury to a player now out for 3 months...

www.totalrl.com/chris-annakin-fa ... sidelines/ A one game ban for injury to a player now out for 3 months...

Had it been known before the hearing then O'Loughlin would have received a longer ban, as it would have been a considerable aggravating factor. Shows the problems the current process has with trying to find consistency and fairness. I doubt they'd have been anticipating the potential for knee injuries when deciding the punishment.

According to Chris Chester they did not even ask for a medical report from Wakefield which has happended every time he has been to the disciplinary...

[urlhttp://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/wakefield-trinity/exclusive-angry-wakefield-trinity-coach-chris-chester-brands-rfl-disciplinary-system-a-joke-1-8012895[/url

Perhaps Chester should have sent them a medical report? Sounds like you've only got yourselves to blame there.

Also, what has Lockers' high tackle got to do with a knee injury? Is Annakin's head on his knee or what? It's pure bad luck and an unprofessional level of bitterness from Chester. No wonder the RFL don't take him and your club seriously behaving like that.

How am I a glory hunter? I was born half a mile from Central Park, I've lived in the Wigan area all my life its not all about success you are what you are, I could have been a Stains fan, but chose to support Wigan, maybe because my father did. I saw Wigan do the double (and maybe win more cups, I can't remember) in my first season and have seen them win over 20 titles in my time as a Wigan fan.

How am I glory hunter, could you explain?

Wrong. The panel was C Batty, I Butt and N Turley, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good story,

That's silenced a few , Lockers , Bateman and Big Frank ( possibly Gells )all ready to go against Saints , bring it on , "nobody likes us we don't care" see you all Friday

I agree with him to be honest. There have been plenty of inconsistencies and now that the RFL seem obsessed with 'dangerous contact' the grades and punishments for those tackles now seem to be out of proportion with the more obvious high tackles and shoulder charges.

It's frustrating that this is being used by some as apparent vindication for their 'RFL is pro-Wigan' tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theories, because we've seen this kind of thing many times before involving different players and different clubs. We need a serious review of the process.

I imagine the chairman of the panel is the one responsible for requesting medical reports. It's possible that in these cases one may always ask for the report and one might never and no one has ever picked up on it. Or maybe I just have no faith in the RFL being well run.

Apparently Danny Sculthorpe replaced Neil Turley on the panel. Not that it adds much to the claims of bias since Sculthorpe has played for Wakefield.

Considering Sculthorpe left Wakey under bad terms I wouldn't expect him to have any kind of positive attachment to us.

Well, if you want to go and tell him he's "bent"...... Good luck..

Well I can, given that it did. I can see how you'd come to a different conclusion though, given I've said that knowledge of the injury would have resulted in an increased ban and that I agree with Chris Chester's comments about it being a farce. Sounds like I'm in denial.

Apologies cherry pie I didn't interpret your response properly and on reflection it us pretty clear

I would like to point out that both Fielden and Sculthorpe have also both played against Lockers as well and that the injury caused to Annakin was not directly related to where Lockers made contact and could also have occurred in a fair tackle.