You have repeatedly said he clearly intended to hit the arm or ball. I have elsewhere said I tend to agree it was the arm, but that is purely based on Raynor's on filed record. But when I watch it on replay in slowmo I could eaily conclude he was aiming for the head. In >30 years I have never seen a swinging fist miss the ball by so much.

In watching the replay in close up tho as they did over and over you only see raynor connect with the head but on the camera where you actually see raynor running in he had already commited to the swing BEFORE tomkins made the dive over the line, unfortunately for raynor he dived where as if he had not raynor would of smashed him side on thats why he connected with the head because his head ended up being the height of where the ball would of been

It was a straight red all day long..Raynor had the choice attempt it and be a hero or villain if it didnt come off..or just let him have the try.
Tomkins had him done, raynor went for it and missed..clenched fist, straight arm, straight to the head=straight to the showers.

No probs with it at all..should be sos tho and a warning letter.

For me it was the right call,no intent there but contact with the head from the only defending player near him has got to be red.Yes he has the right to challenge for the ball,but he has then got to hit the ball or at least hit the player below the head.

It's clearly a tactic to try and hit the arm to dislodge the ball, which Platt did earlier on Richards. In Platt's case he hit the upper arm/shoulder and the tackle slid up onto the head, in Raynors case, possibly because Tompkins was moving faster and lower to the ground, he mistimed it and got his head. It fits the category of reckless and should be a sending off but there have been examples of reckless shots to the head (hello Mr Webb) that haven't got the same punishment.

Seriously? I've seen at least three instances of people swinging to hit the ball and missing by as much in NRL matches this year. As Noble pointed out players are now coached to do it.

Or do you mean - missing the ball by as much and hitting someone in the head?

In my opinion that's unusual and unlucky. I think some of those who believe he did it on purpose are making a judgement on their assessment of Tomkins' personality rather than Raynor's, i.e. despite liking him and supporting him they recognise he's a big enough pain in the a$$ to warrant a punch in the head and therefore someone colliding with him must have had that intent. But that's not a logical or coherent argument.

The balance of probabilities is that he was going for the ball. Tomkins is extremely fast and was diving for the line, it's unfortunate but no major harm done and I have no problem with a red card because it was obviously a bit reckless.

Remember this happened in a split second and if Noble's right and players are coached to do it, then Raynor was behaving in a correct and 'professional' way - he just got his timing wrong. Fortunately Sam is alright, Wigan won without him and we Bulls fans feel more positive about how the team played, time to move on.

Totally agree whats done is done, just down to RFL to deem whether sending off was sufficient !!

To be honest, i think the RFL will give him a ban(not that he derseves it) but thats just bradfords luck.

It's been a while since we've had a player up before the beak. Full advantage will be taken and I expect he'll get two matches. They can only go on the video evidence and whatever Raynor says in mitigation it looked pretty malicious, like he was peeved Tomkins had scored so cracked him one for his trouble.

Watching it on TV, Tomkins had a look of Mr Punch waiting for the puppet show to start when he was on the floor.

What evidence that he was? The way he was lining his chin up from 50 yards away?
Or did you find a threatening note that Raynor left for him in the dressing room?

If you are saying it, then it is almost certainly so. You are one of the few really qualified to honestly comment.

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2730=#800000Up before the beak, as expected.[/url Looking at 1-2 matches based on the charge.

Interesting to see that no fewer than FIVE Wigan incidents were considered - and they get off on them all. But that is a lot of incidents, and most are around the things that everyione has been playing up about all season. If nothing else, they must be sailibng close to the wind?

No other incidents for Bradford, incidentally. So we would seem not to be.

The apoplexy continues on the Pieboard.

I meant missing the ball & hitting the head. I've seen attempts at ball & all that have missed the head completely.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Noble says it is coached. Hitting the ball in the tackle has always been coached.

All I have is the VR. Clear cut strike to the head. Only Raynor knows the truth.

I'm pretty certain what Noble is saying is coached is trying to hit the ball carrying arm. Because Raynor is coming from the side and behind he can't reach the ball so instead hit the arm to try and make him drop the ball.

Nobby was just saying what we know to be the case, players are coached to strike for the ball - consequently on the balance of probabilities he was doing as coached, rather than trying to punch Sam's lights out as asserted by others.

Point being Sam and his big brother are not angels, both were banned earlier this year, as we know. Consequently when Sam gets laid out people jump to the conclusion it was likely to be malicious when the context - players coached to strike for ball to prevent a score - says the opposite. An event needs to be put in context to be understood, Mlaud.

Just watched the incident again, cold light of day and all that. IMO there is no way he was going for the ball. It was an attack to the head. I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt yesterday, but on revisiting the incident it was clearly, imo, a deliberate attack to the head.

Name says it all.... CHAV

I think the hitting the ball thing is stupid, his arm was far from the ball, I believe he tried to hit Tomkins shoulder to turn him onhis back and hold the ball up. He did a similar thing against Wakefield's Griffin made that break and Raynor caught him.

Chav?

Please explain... Oh and if you are too stupid to recognise a subtle play on words, if you ask nice i will explain in simple words you can understand..

But after the incident when Joel went up to Ganson he must of had a few hardsh words as Ganson told him not to speak to him like that, surely if Joel has given ganson abuse this should also have been an issue ie. sinbin, as have seen sinbinnings for foul and abusive language aimed at officials

Raynor made a mess of his challenge but at that speed it's a difficult one to complete. There's a lot of armchair experts with opinions that have never actually tried anything like that on the field. I'd say a 1-2 game ban is probably what it deserves.

As for the consistency of decision making on the field and before the committee that's another issue. On this particular challenge I think Raynor did deserve a red card and I could understand a 1 or 2 game ban IMHO of course.

Are you off your rocker, he plays for the bulls not wigan !!

Just looking for the last time a Wigan "deliberate attack to the head" knocked someone out..... Nope....

No as in we are not a set of dirty cheating pie-eaters like you lot,

Rugby league is not the sort of game where players do that sort of thing deliberately, and personally i think your an idiot for suggesting otherwise !!!