Secondary contact doesn't fracture cheekbones, let alone in 3 places. The tv evidence shown was at best for hkr inconclusive (because it was that late not even the tv cameras were expecting any further involvement) - it's as bad a shoulder charge as we've had since the ban was brought in - if Walmsely got a C grade last year, it had to be a C. It was incorrect, purely to back up the incorrect decision made on the field.

Taking bias out of the question do you agree with the logic that an action that caused no harm got a 2 game ban, and an action which broke a players cheekbone only got 1?

"Nobody wants to see players injured". Who are you trying to kid mate? Any player, whether that be a Saints player or a Hull KR player, who deliberately shoulder charges an opposition player, is not attempting to play by the rules and risks seriously injuring a player.

Why do you think it was done so early in the game? It is obvious. And even you, deep down, know full well that your team had a plan to "take out" Travis Burns. Just like Wigan did with Lance in the GF. It's a disgrace, whichever team does it.

Oh, and you've got your days all mixed up. The real derby is on Friday and is being held at the Wigan Athletic Football Stadium.

It seems to me that Saints fans have either short or selective memories. A couple of seasons ago, Meli and Wilkin carried out dreadful attacks to the heads of 2 Hull KR players. Meli nearly took the head off Hall and broke his arm in the attack which was so bad that even Child would agree when he was sent off, Wilkin merely got put on report. Both were banned which brought howls of derision from Saints fans. So can a Saints fan explain why was it so wrong for Saints players to be banned yet Green got off lightly?

If you can find evidence of your imaginary saints fan outrage at Meli being banned, I'll respond to your imaginary scenario.

Meli was banned for a clumsy tackle - I can't recall what he got but I bet it was more than 1 game. I vaguely remember Wilkin getting something too

Green (a prop) hit Burns (a Halfback) with his shoulder (now illegal), late (illegal) and in the face (illegal). He didn't get sent off which probably cost us 2 points, he got a pathetic 1 match ban and to add insult to injury Burns got a triple fracture for his troubles. We have every right to be annoyed.

One thing I do remember clearly is the amount of wailing and crying your lot did about Meli especially.

Erm, when you are referring to Saints fans, you should use the phrase 'some Saints fans'.

I do not have a short or a selective memory. Meli fully deserved his sending off, although calling it an "attack" is grossly misrepresenting the situation and does you no favours.

Wilkin should of walked too. Any deliberate attack to the head is disgraceful.

All I want, as a fan of my club and the game in general, is consistency. Wilkin should of seen red in the game you referred too. Green should of seen red last week. Simple.

Interesting to read Eamonn questioning the inconsistencies in the disciplinary process, ironically Neil Hudgell did the same last season...

One can only expect Eamonn to cop a fine too if we're talking about consistency...

It was late, he hit the head but if we being honest, he was unlucky to kop a bad injury like he has.

For me it's a 3 game ban.

Let's face it... Child was playing on as both he and the linesmen missed the tackle (just like the forward passes!!!).
It was only after Burns didn't get up, play stopped and Child watched the screen to see what had happened and then decided to put the incident on report.

This is why Imo televised games are treated different and either all should have a video ref or none at all.

If the video ref looked at it, then why wasn't he sent off ?

a) he didn't put the incident on report
b) refs aren't allowed to watch the screen, and the video ref can only get involved if the ref asks for an opinion (child didn't iirc)
c) I absolutely agree that all games should have some form of video ref. I see no reason to remove touch judges at the top level and allow constant communication between ref and video ref. We already did so with in goal judges and it would just be an extension of that philosophy.

I stand corrected... Child gave a penalty not put it on report. But I believe that was only because he was looking at the screen as Blair was about to play the ball before Child stopped the game because Burns stayed down.

Rightly or wrongly he indirectly used the screen to give the penalty.

Which goes back to the consistency issue, if the game was played on Sunday afternoon woth no screen to view, Blair plays the ball and the game continues.

Not sure our guests from KR are covering themselves in glory on this one.

Firstly the better team won. This was acknowledged by our coach and most posters.

The two passes were forward and accepted by most as such.

But Burns was taken out - & the motives have been clearly laid out by KR posters - and the suspension is a joke. To use examples such as Meli is bizarre as he received a hefty ban.

Eamon's statement is spot on and as ever very measured.

There is not usually animosity between us and KR so let's move on and concentrate on the real enemies this weekend.

How funny that a week after accusing our coach of "sour grapes", for saying certain tackling techniques need to be looked at and we need more consistency, that your owner should come out and say the same thing.

Lol, yeah exactly the same! Good one.

Interestingly though a late shoulder charge to face isn't really a form of tackling technique is it?

One was a terrible, unfortunate unavoidable accident.
One was late, high, and a banned technique.

Yup completely comparable. If Saints had done as hkr did, Smiths comments would of been totally justified ... But they didn't.

Good on him. Incompetence of the highest order at the RFL over this one. It was a vile challenge. It was late, high and with the point of the shoulder aimed and impacting with the face. What makes it worthy of a 6+ match ban for me is the intent. Hull KR fans will tell you how hated Burns was at KR after he left them and this was a challenge in the first moments of the game, where Burns and Green hadn't had previous in the game. It was totally premeditated.

The RFL look foolish now. They will come out and fine McManus, but they must surely be able to see how daft the decision was.

Whilst I agree entirely with the statement from McManus, this is almost guaranteed to come back and haunt us. The next even borderline challenge by a Saints player will see a red and an entirely exaggerated response from the disciplinary committee just to prove a point.

Wow never heard so much dross from a bunch of fans than these billy big time Hull KR fans. Deluded springs to mind. Always knew there was good reason I wanted there superior neighbours to always smash them.

We've said it before, going back as far as the injury to Longy from the late charge down at huddersfield, it won't take much for a slight rule change that would completely change the mindset of some players.

If a player suffers an injury as a direct result of foul play, the RFL then have the capacity to suspend the offender for the duration not exceeding the length of time the injured player is out of the game.

Job done.

It would prevent the head hunters and late challenges on half backs.

We don't need that rule, we just need the rules we have to be applied consistently and competently. It's quite simple.

How does the aussie points system work ? Would that not be a better option than the random bans we seem to dish out?

Shouldn't Mr McManus ask questions of the Saints medical staff as to why a player was allowed to play for 78 minutes with a triple fracture of the cheek? I don't think the hand off to Burns by Dixon when he scored his try will have helped the injury.

Maybe they'd left their portable x-ray machine back at Langtree Park by mistake.

You'll be disappointed more often than happy then.