Was a penalty but no more.
Ruined the gane that decision. Player wasn't injured, yes was a late hit, but that happens in heat of battle.
As others said, at least 4-5 more hits like that in this game.......

Lets see what the disciplinary panel give.I didn't see 4 or 5 late hits on players without the ball?

Absolute drivel. It was a clear red card and a 3 match ban IMO. I didn’t see another hit like it in the game.

Eastmond has to play against Wigan surely.

I always thought the late hit should have been banned and not the shoulder charge. My only complaint about the red on Saturday is the consistency. I'm all for it being a red card offence if they apply it regularly.

Think some of the fans interpretations of the game, and sendong people off willy nilly is destroying the game, just as much as constant mucky mouse rule changes. If you want to watch games ruined as a spectacle because of a genuine mistimed tackle, where nobody been injured then fair play to you.....

Fans' interpretation? Refs' and disciplinary panel, more like.

With all the concerns about concussion, you might as well forget about refs giving the benefit on the off chance that no injury arises from that kind of challenge.

Yeah. But also fans on this thread saying was a sending off and deserved a ban now.
Would understand for serious malice and injuring player. But for that......no chance....

Whether a player is injured or not is totally irrelevant. It is the offence that should be punished. I think Zane is top class and I love watching him play, but I don't like seeing half backs get hit late. I wouldn't have been happy if Gale had copped a hit like that.

Just because we are Leeds fans doesn't mean we should ignore the illegal act or downplay what the consequences should be. The seriousness with which concussion is now rightly being taken means this sort of stuff is going to get dealt with harshly.

3 or 4 games is appropriate. The lack of visible injury is largely irrelevant, the relative lack of malice means it should be say 3 games rather than 6.

You could send someonriff and ban even every game then if rules are gonna be interpreted like this.
But then on another day since refs probably wouldn't even have given a penalty....!

The thing is slow any hit on a HB down it looks just as late or worse. Gale got battered v Wskey & Cas after kicking yet that doesnt count anymore.

The argument that because refs sometimes might miss them then it's unfair if one of our players gets caught is pretty weak.

Not just missing them, I just don't think that hit was sending off offense...

Well, if the panel says otherwise I'm afraid you're wrong. And long term, it'll give better protection to the likes of Gale as the coaches will be doing their damnedest to ensure they're not left playing with twelve as well.

Everybody is entitled to there opinion even when they are wrong .

When is Tetevano hearing tomorrow? I'd imagine Agar will name him in 21 just incase he escapes a ban but can't see it for me personally didn't think it was a red a yellow would have been sufficient as I think he is late in hitting Thages but was committed too the tackle and there wasn't direct contact with the head but everyone is gonna have a split opinion on it we'll have to see how his hearing goes.

The disciplinary panel have never been reliable nor consistent just see Tommy Leuleui in week 1 v Leigh a blatant cannonball tackle didnt even get a warning.

There is a certain irony in having Paul Cullen on the panel. He'll likely be giving Tet marks out of ten rather than dishing out a ban.

Sending off was sufficient punishment

Eastmond is playing against Wigan

3 to 5 games for Tetevano. Agar says the club will be challenging.

That’s outrageous. Club is absolutely correct to appeal.

It's about right and is as was expected by anyone who knows the rules and gradings. Hopefully he can get it to the lower end of that scale.

Charged with Grade D. The disaplinary panel disagree.

wrong on both or just one?