Regarding Konrad, do you remember Dean Hadley copping a three match ban in a Derby a few years back, for the offence of shoving someone in a vulnerable position, I’m no conspiracy merchant, but as I posted last week, the recent clampdown on players discipline only seems pertinent to certain clubs.

Exactly its a joke as the officials and RFL Disciplinary just aren't even handed nor consistent the only consistency they have is in inconsistency.

Reckon Gale will be given at least 8 games as a example despite his previous good record which only seems to count if you play for St's, Leeds or Wigan.

Pity they don't charge Welsby with a grade C for 'behaving in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game (includes Dangerous Contact) –
Other contrary behaviour' as that was clear as day he played for the penalty and feigned being hurt.

Also the wording on Matty Lees charge in that he only had eyes on the ball

so is that a defence every player can use as if so surely Gale only had eyes on the ball but only made contact at the last moment Lomax's leg suddenly appeared in front of him.

I love the James Roby one.

Charge Detail:
Player is wrapping the ball. Opponent dips head. Contact is head to arm

Like to see a player from a Yorkshire club get the same treatment.

That’s clearly not cheating if you’re a Saints player.

This what the panel said...

.

They're actually saying that Swift commits the misconduct by getting in the path of Lees.

Do you know our club, as crap as we are at the moment, took around 2000 fans to Wakey, what’s that around £50,000 in the opponents coffers, we may not be the darlings of the RFL, but that’s something these biased people would do well to remember. Without both Hull clubs, rugby league would be done.

Keep up the good work Cullen.

Exactly how many times have teams like ourselves, Rovers, Wakey etc had players banned for tackles deemed high when the player being tackled ducked or was falling at the point of impact. The Liam Watts one a few years ago when still playing for us being a classic example where the opposing player actually fell in to Watts yet he was binned and received a ban.

And we all thought it would be injuries that would stop Gale & Reynolds playing a full season as a half back pairing.

I

Why do people always whinge about the RFL hating us, call the disciplinary a joke etc.

Gale's foot up / studs first action was always going to end up with a ban. Complete brainfart. Then he made it worse by pulling Lomax up. If it had been the other way around the same people would be calling for a ban.

I guess it'll be five matches plus the three so he'll be back for late April or early May - unless the RFL rule the bans run concurrently which doesn't seem likely.

Yep its laughable that a player with his back turned and stationary is the one committing misconduct not the player running in and pushing said player out the way because he didn't see him? Anybody would say that is careless by not being able to stop or avoid a stationary player. I must try that if I have an accident while driving 'Sorry officer its not my fault as I had my eyes on the road and didnt see the stationary object in the way'

They aren't biased neither are the refs and neither are the Sky commentators.

Its not that Gale is being banned that's the issue for me but the severity of the ban along with the inconsistency in the offences and the differences in punishments dished out across the teams. Its seems pretty clear to me that as a club along with our neighbours across the river we seem to fair differently than the likes of St's, Leeds and Wigan when you look at comparable offences and the subsequent penalties handed out. That's not conspiracy its an honest opinion based on what is evident in both written and video form.

Not surprised with the outcome for Gale, but it seems overly harsh. 3 in total would have been about right.

The Swift incident he wasn't stationary, he deliberately cut across - if Lees had have just run into him it would have been a penalty to Saints for escorting off the ball - Saints (or more specifically, Percival) was penalised for it relentlessly at times last year, and it was no different here, except for the fact Lees took exception and pushed him.

Your car analogy doesn't work, if someone cuts across you, and instead of attempting to swerve out of the way you steered into the collision, you would rightly be at fault, but it doesnt negate the fact you were cut across in the first place ...

Irrespective to anyones thoughts on the punishment for the raised studs incident (Grade D is a little harsh to me, it could have been a grade C in my mind) I am pleased the RFL took a stance on Gale pushing the trainer out of the way and trying to pull Lomax off the ground/ not receive treatment and had a separate charge for it, was just a bit of a grubby thing to do.

and here's me thinking it was the trainer pushing Gale out of the way.

Sorry, Chris, that's just nonsense. Lets see your proof.

Go on then, explain the glaring inconsistencies.

I can't explain something that doesn't exist.

Take a look through the disciplinary panels own rap sheets even recent ones from this season alone just an example of inconsistencies: Austin and Dwyer both banned for the same offence that Hurrell committed and was charged with yet no action or ban for Hurrell. Considering the any flexion of the neck was something the RFL made clear would be dealt with firmly how do St’s and Hurrell escape punishment that the RFL have already dished out for the same offence? Also the shove by Lees on Swift caused a huge flexion of the neck but the panel view it as misconduct by Swift for being in the way and lees running through the back of Swift because Lees had his eyes in the ball and didn’t see Swift stood there. Had that been the other way around I’m pretty sure a penalty and card would have been issued as has been shown before. That’s just two from the game without the Roby decision of it being head to arm due to player duckibg yet other occasions have lead to bans for players regardless of opposing player ducking or falling in to the tackle due the the RFL stating tackler has a responsibility blah blah. Then the laughable call by the VR to not just call a penalty in Wynn for making a tackle but then compound it by issuing a yellow card. So in just our game alone on Saturday that’s more than enough inconsistency which is there to see.

It’s this level of not just inconsistency and uneven way clubs and players are dealt with but also the incompetence that begs the question and leads fans to rightly question things.

You said Leeds were dealt favourably then used two Leeds players who were banned to prove your point?

Take a look at the official stats for penalties/cards. We are pretty average. Most penalised clubs in recent seasons

2021
1 Leeds
2 Wigan
3 Salford
4 St Helens
9 Hull FC

2020
1 Cas
2 Wigan
3 Rovers
4 Wakefield
10 Hull FC

2019
1 Catalans
2 Salford
3 Rovers
4 Warrington
12 Hull FC

2018
1 Huddersfield
2 Catalans
3 Warrington
4 Cas
9 Hull FC

But yes the refs and the RFL hate us.

Leeds players have been dealt with more favourably in previous seasons yes. The two players I’ve used are recent examples of inconsistencies already this season. In Austin & Dwyer both are ones that have committed the same offences as Hurrell and was charged with yet those two players got bans and Hurrell escapes without even though the RFL were deeming these incidents more severely.

No they haven’t.

I haven’t said they hate us. I have simply stated that clubs are not dealt with evenly by the disciplinary when dishing out punishment for offences committed. So stats on the number penalties and cards is pretty irrelevant as doesn’t show the inconsistency of offence v punishment which is the issue for me.

Though you seem to give the impression you think the officials are infallible and perfect and the Wynn penalty snd card was just? That decision alone highlights the poor officiating standard when an onfield ref and VR with the help of reply’s to look at still get and got it so wrong