Quote Quote ="duke street 10"Had a feeling he would be pulled for it given his previous....had it been Dixon for example he would have got a warning.'"
'"
Duke St, having previous has nothing to do with it, it is either guilty or not guilty. Even if Dixon had done it if deemed guilty he would be looked at. It only comes into play if after tried. If your guilty a previous offender would get more than one who has a good record. It's like pulling someone in for spitting in the street because he has a record for assault or malicious wounding or not pulling someone in for mugging an old lady because he has no 'previous'. You cannot say 'Well it does not really warrant a citing or suspension, but he has previous so we will bring him in, or alternatively 'It was bad enough to warrant action being taken, but he has had no previous, so we'll leave it alone. If it is deemed bad or illegal, you get charged whether you have previous or not and then it comes into play, and someone who has previous gets looked at less favourably. If the tackle is not worthy of even a citing or not illegal, you can have 'previous' as long as your arm, it should not make any difference.
The tackle to me appears to be no different to the one Paul Aiton made against Salford, which also resulted in just a penalty being given. (not saying for definite that it is). If this is the case, the fact is that Aiton's was not deemed bad, illegal or serious enough for a citing or further action, and so on that basis neither should Carney's, irregardless whether he has previous or not.