Some how I can't see you saying that to Lee's face, Radders is one of the last people you would pick a fight with on or off a rugby field.

What I firstly fail to understand, is how within 24 hours, there can have been a total turnaround. The reason seems to be (from the report) that Lee had already served a one match ban, due to being sent off so early. Surely this was considered in the initial assessment. I feel this is totally unjust anyway. It shouldn't matter when a player goes off. If it's a ban, it's a ban. Not a sending off.


However, what worries me the most is the following statement: 'It is not disputed that Lee punched Bailey repeatedly but all but one of those punches made no contact'. How is that ok? Just because they didn't make contact. What if they had and broke his jaw? It seems that there is no punishment for intent, only injury caused. This to me is ridiculous. This needs to be stamped out before it happens and causes a serious injury. As the governing body, only the RFL can do this.

Ok TVOC, they applied the max penalty according to what? Their own rules? What does that say?

It all comes back down to the same thing. The RFL are a bunch of bottlers. Its time they go tough.

Its perhaps worth saying as well that this isn't just about Radford - its a general observation.

Guys, why are you all getting so angry? It was only Ryan Bailey!!!

You are a softcock.

What it says to me is they graded the offence and applied the stiffest sentence available to them.

If they got tough, Bailey wouldn't have been available at the KC for Radford to fire at, Senior would probably have been banned after the quarter final with Wigan, Ablett could have been ruled out for the season, that kind of tough?

The way I see it, Radford can count himself unlucky to have been sent off in the first place and Bailey can count himself lucky his song and dance pantomime routine didn't earn himself a spell in the sin bin.