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.

He injured his knee whilst falling to the ground
He fell to the ground because he was unconscious
He was unconscious because he was hit by Locker's arm

So being knocked out by Lockers arm and being injured whilst falling to the ground was not directly related then....

I LOVE how this is still carrying on

Wakey are the new Cas.

Never known any teams who were expecting to win a game take it so badly that they lost.

Its got more legs than i thought it would

Has this finally made Wakefield relevant for the first time since 16/09/06?

Their fans haven't seen them beat enough opponents by 60 points to realise that this doesn't automatically entitle you to win the rematch.

He injured his knee attempting to sidestep Lockers' challenge, that's why he was going down slightly before the challenge and explains why Lockers made accidental contact with the neck/shoulder region.

MOT

......to Batley

you're funny.......when you're drunk on the interwebz..

That proves my point.

So, a video showing SOL deliberately and illegally taking out an opponent proves your point!! Would you like to explain what point you were trying to prove?

I could watch that all night.

Really gets him good doesn't he