I honestly haven't seen it, is it in the highlights on your site?



That was my thinking though, I don't think I heard a single person say there was anything in it, next thing I saw he'd submitted an EGP. Seems crazy!



Unless you're specifically targeting a particular game for points and didn't want him to miss that?

And his first game after suspension?

London away.

www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... n/2014/02/ Interesting to read the RFL comments regarding the 2 Bulls infringements that were also in front of the panel. Both were deemed to be illegal and neither player got a ban.

www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... n/2014/02/ Interesting to read the RFL comments regarding the 2 Bulls infringements that were also in front of the panel. Both were deemed to be illegal and neither player got a ban.

Fair one, probably decided it was better to take two for the team then.



It seems the RFL are being pretty damn lenient so far though, in retrospect it was probably the wrong call.

what else would you expect, I think we should of challenged them, what was the worse 3 games

Surprise surprise, Scott Moore of London got found not guilty despite having a garde D charge (3-5 games) levelled at him yesterday.

A charge which was due to a 'cannonball' type tackle that lead to the injury of a Salford player for at least two months.

just watched tonight and rewound a few times, the reason why for the early plea IMHO is because it did come at a 90 to the joint whether it was accidental or not has put the player on the side lines for a few weeks, had it not been as serious injury then he might of got away with a warning.



for me he wasn't looking at the point of contact but now you could end up with no tackling around the leg area do to risk of a ban, it will soon be time to put tags on players and no contact allowed

Salford v Saints last night had at least 20 examples of 3rd man in going low but none penalised, caused injury or even drew comment.



It does seem that this rule is only going to be enforced in the unfortunate incidence of an injury to a player whilst playing in a televised match and that is not a sensible basis for legislating in the game.



The advent of Sky has created many anomalies within the game and the answer always seems to be "get on with it" whereas it should be a case of engaging skilled professionals who understand both the game and the English language to frame sensible rules that are manageable across all levels of the game and not utterly distorted by TV replays.

Is there any evidence that the tackle from Collis caused the injury? To me, he could quite easily have caused damage when catching the ball and setting off from a standing start....very unfortunate for Gaskell, but i've yet to see one person say that tackle deserved a ban...

Consistency, that's all we ask.



Moore on Griffin - 2 month injury, Grade D charge - not guilty

Buesquet on Tansey - 1 week injury, Grade D charge - 3 match ban



Not suggesting that the punishment shoud be based on injury severity, but both were dangerous contact else there'd be no injury at all.



Moore's looks far worse than Mrs Bucket's, but the potential for severe damage is there in both.



Difference please????????

Watching last night I noticed a lot of third man tackles and watched closely because of what happened with Collis.

For me, none of the ones I saw were worthy of a question from the referee because they were all above the knee.

Collis hit in the wrong place so although not intended, was dangerous because of poor technique.



If he'd clamped the legs together above the knee the tackle would have been just as effective but would not have caused injury