Exactly we've been punished for the next 8 weeks, KC should get at least 3 IMO. I know he int that type of player but who cares, it was a cheap shot either way!

out for rest of season i heard with a fractured eye socket and broken cheekbone

3 game ban not enough, IMO

Cunningham is a dirty git! JD's forarm wasnt half as bad as what cunningham did to stosic and he could be out for the season now.

We need to protect the players and punish the poor tackles/cheap shots. Until a hefty ban is handed out it will carry on occuring. For me the incident is no different to simply running up to someone and punching them for no reason, Stosic should't expect a whack for simply locking on in the tackle and slowing down play.

If he has broken his jaw/eye/cheek then i don't think we could complain at 5 games.

It shouldn't matter how long he will be out for or what damage he's done.

The ban should be what ever you get for punching.

We can't start banning players on how long the player they injure is out.

The are lot worse tackles that let go week in week out because the player doesn't get hurt.

Why not?

It was a thuggish cheap shot and has done serious damage to it's victim.

Simple solution is don't throw thuggish cheap shots and you won't get lengthy bans.

Agreed. The game definately needs cleaning up like the NRL has done. There you get just big legal shots rather than high tackles!

I dont agree, it was one of the shortest jabs ive ever seen,
Its no wonder Cunningham doesnt go in fists flying if that what happens.
Peacocks thrown a hell of alot of punches this season and hasnt received a ban.
If he's broke his jaw he'll get one though.

Exactly. Peacock had around 5 fights in 5 consecutive games this season and gone unpunished each time.

It's not Cunninghams fault that he is made of stone! It's how god created the king!

Pathetic comment.

You T00L.

Cunningham had the ball in his arm, and had no backswing at all. I'll be honest, when I saw it on the night I thought his thumb must have gone in the lad's eye, because I couldn't believe such an apparently small tap could cause such a reaction otherwise. Perhaps he should have been a boxer with that sort of jab.

Very unlucky for Stosic, but tbh you'll see a dozen worse swings in every match at the PTB as the tackled player tries to get his tackler off. It'd surprise me if there was a ban. Players throw big haymakers with far more intention to damage their opponent with nothing coming of it. We'll see.

Whats all this backswing b0ll0cks?

The best punches ever thrown have no backswing and travel short distances yet do major damage.

Cunningham is a 17st barrell of muscle and certainly does'nt need to put everything into a punch to cause injury.

The punch was thrown at Stosic for no reason, no provacation at all, Cunninham was frustrated at the way the game was going and lashed out.
he should be punished heavily!

Haha,fancy a rugby player fuc*ing about at the play the ball!!A 9-2 penalty count would suggest that Wakey really are the only team that break the rules........Aren't they?

You mean like punishing Demietriou for his forearm into Wello's throat as well I asume? At least Cunningham was being fouled / held down at the time. Demietriou had not the slightest excuse apart from helping Wakey score an illegal try.

If Cunningham has caused serious damage, then he will deserve whatever ban is given - I'm not defending him, but you can't have double standards.

The video ref looked at the challenge from Demetriou and saw nothing illegal.
Supporters of Saints saw nothing illegal.

I think even Cunningham would be ashamed of a t!t like you

There is a difference between a punch in a fight though and a puch on the ground causing (potentially) serious damage to a player? We'd be calling for life bans if the boot was on the other foot. 5 games IMO.

Oh, and i don't think there was anything wrong with what JD did to Wello either. Fozzard does that every week.

That is not quite the case, because the video ref was not allowed to give a penalty for the elbow as the referee had not reffered the incident for adjudication.

Poppycock -- the VR -- looked at the incident over and over again,before awarding the try.

Do you really think it took that long to decide if Grix grounded the ball properly.

He doesnt just have to look at what the Ref asks.

Often the ref will ask the VR to check onside from a kick,but he is happy with the grounding.You are suggesting that if the ball was dropped when grounding the VR would ignore it,because the ref never asked him to look at that.
Get Real.

I suggest you get yourself a copy of the rulebook.

Some supporters of Saints saw an illegal tackle; others did not.

I suggest you get in the real world.

Answer the question --- If ref asks VR to check for onside/offside only -- will the VR ignore the fact that the ball wasnt grounded - simply because the ref didnt ask him to check it?

I thought the VR could look at any incident since the last play the ball, regardless of whether the ref asks or not.

Edited for accuracy.