not defending Burns as i thought it was careless more than malicious. He was high from behind but the player did turn his head and body that way so was worse then it was probably intended. If he had got 10 minutes however I wouldnt have complained.

I thought that initially but have seen it since and it's a shocker, I reckon he will cop a ban.

majority of which came from rovers, burns, walker, g horne! hence the sin binning

as for burns should've walked, swinging arm that could've been a lot worse! ganson bottled it!!

one word to use 'karma' as it looks like he'll miss the next couple of games through injury

Dont think it will matter. Dislocated shoulder by all accounts.

See it all the time, if it had been one of ours the reaction would have been different. Could easily have been trying to hit the ball and got it wrong. Too much doubt for any ban.

If Burns' fist had been clenched and he'd swung it in then it would have been red. He didn't so it was the correct call.

Swinging arm to the head and stopped a certain try. At least a sin bin.

He made contact with the head. If there's any consistency, he'll cop a game, intentional or not.

How will that work now that he is injured?

should have got 10 mins at the most, but doesnt excuse us being gash. pity the fans care more than the team

Stopped a certain try? Doubt it Tom, they had at least two others covering. No clenched fist either, penalty was the correct decision.

Crooks was in, with Briscoe on his outside, 20 metres out. Looked all the world to be a try.

It's irrelevant.

It would be moot, effectively. Is there not some rule about if it is seen and penalised but not put on report...? Not sure.

I thought he'd get yellow - Horne ended up taking it instead for one much more innocuous. Red would have been harsh, but away from home and with Ganson's willingness to surprise, not a risk you want to be taking.

Dirty cheapshot merchant and that was in Aus so he has carried on over here.......not at that good as well.

So how can a ban effect a player who can't play anyway? Ridiculous.

That's just one of those things I'm afraid.

What would be the more sensible approach?

On report is a complete cop out.

It was a red card, pure and simple. Nasty, malicious and dangerous. what makes it worse is that the officiails and everyone in the crowd could see he should have walked just by looking at the slow-mo on the big scree. Another example of RL ref bottling a big decision.

He swung with a clenched fist at his head... if ever there was a sending off that was it..
Sad thing is 1/2 of teh other "head high" tackles weren't...

In the end probably would have been better for rovers if he was sent off.. now he's injured hope its a long layoff... justice mayhaps.

wow loving some of the blinkered one sided statements being made in this thread.....

Was it a sinbinning.... No
was it reckless...yes
was it intentional....no

Compared to the challenge that led to a sinbinning then yes it should have been a yellow, but never a red... Many challenges could have and should have been punished in the game, Watsy had a shocking swinging arm which was missed by the officials so it evens itself out in that respect, we will each see only the bad of the opposition at times and too much is open to interpretation and that is why officials are so inconsistent with their decisions .......

Blinkered... just watch the replay and you will see how blinkered we all are.
(Oh and BTW open your eyes and watch it)

You don't tackle a player with a clenched fist and aim for their head...

wishing a player be injured very classy

Ganson put the whole Rovers team on a last warning for head high tackles, and Horne was the next one, so got a yellow card.

Thought Burns's hit was a shocker.