2 match ban ,might influence Saints results & take a bit of pressure off the top 3.

Turned down the EGP and Cunningham chose to fight the charge. Clearly he doesn't hold the same influence that Shaun Wane holds at Red Hall!!

Well I just said on their forum they should of got Wane to represent them lol.

Amazed that they fought it, I thought that it was very dangerous indeed. Had he put the player down he would have got away with it, but he dropped him instead.

Not heard how Luke Thompson went on ,he was a grade C for a shoulder charge. That Walsh tackle looked nasty though.

Thompson got the same result 2 matches and £300.00 fine

Both decisions utterly farcical. Walsh tackle was superb, got under the ball and hit him hard. He saw that completing the tackle would have seen him go upside down, so he dropped him. No intent to hurt him at all, the yellow was more than enough. Compare with the Willie Isa 'tackle' on Jordan Turner which was very similar to the Walsh tackle, but instead he turned Turner and drove him into the ground. No ban.

The Thompson tackle, as McManus states in his press release today sets a very, very dangerous precedent. If someone is injured in a tackle now, it's got to be a ban, no matter what happened. Will we see that followed through with? No of course we won't. The panel ignore the fact that the ball carrier leads with the elbow and connects with Thompson and they also ignore the fact that his right arm was wrapped around the Catalans player and the fact that even if his shoulder did connect there was no contact with the head. Not only should Thompson not have been banned, the penalty decision should have gone to Saints.

Clear eye gouge in the same game? Ignored. Dave Taylor's tackle, the punch on Lomax on the floor? Ignored.

Is the RFL biased? I read today that Wigan have had 7 times more citings than Saints over the last 12 months, but have received less weeks in bans. I have no idea if that's true. I also have no idea if often having two former Wigan players on a council of three making the decisions has an influence on the outcome either, but it clearly shouldn't be happening. Can you imagine if the Premier League banning committee judging on bans for United players the week before they play Liverpool was Jamie Carragher, Micky Quinn and a QC from Leeds. How would that go down?

Walsh threw him to the floor he did not drop him or let him go the motion is clear to see! Thompson one is unfortunate not intentional but contact with the head happened tho how's and whys the contact occurred can be debated but I feel that the defender has the responsibility not to make a tackle that will result in contact with the head he didn't and has been banned.

The panel is decided before the offences and even games have taken place.

So you're happy with the current system then? Whether you think Walsh should be banned or not, there have been countless tackles this season that have been worse, more dangerous, done with more intent and yet not banned. In all of those not only have the players been turned upside down, they've also been driven into the ground. Brian Carney's outburst was embarrassing and Sky shouldn't be allowed to have former players like him and Clarke trying to influence decisions to suit Wigan. To have not one but two rants about a single incident, which was not in the top 10 dangerous tackles this season is just bizarre. Sean O'Loughlin's decapitation attempt the other week that ended a young player's season got him a one game ban, less than Thompson

Yeah, the system works great.





Fine, no ban.



Fine, no ban.



Definition of a shoulder charge "where a defender, without attempting to grab, tackle or hold the ball carrier (or any opposing player) using the arms or hands, makes direct physical contact with the shoulder". We'll just ignore the video evidence and rule that he was injured therefore it must be a ban

The ban for Thompson is wrong. It was just a shoulder charge and should just have been a penalty and no further action. His injury came as a result of the tackle (fair tackle) from Walmsley, nowt to do with Thompson.

Walsh got what he deserved imo. It's the other incidents you've highlighted from Wigan that were wrong. But Walsh's shouldn't be wrong as well just because others have been.

Tbh i was at Saints game last Friday & i only saw the Thompson incident once in real time & it looked perfectly ok to me & i was surprised when Mr Childs even gave a penalty. I wasn't happy with the Walsh tackle though & was surprised the card wasn't red.

No I'm not happy with the system as it is those unpunished challenges are a sham, however it's not a reason to justify Walsh not getting a ban. Or saying shouldn't even be a yellow as worse tackles have gone unpunished.

If those tackles had been punished u would be happy with the two game ban?? Probably not as your description of the tackle is just towing the club line

Yes it started as a good hit however the foul was committed when the Walsh threw him to the ground had he lift n drive to ground as we see every week not even a pen but he didn't and is deserving of his ban

I've not seen the Thompson tackle but Walsh is lucky just to get two games IMO. It was a bad one.

If you ask me. They should un-ban the lot if they can't get it consistent.
I don't want to see tiddly winks anyway. Nowt wrong with pre 90s rugby. I don't recall broken necks through the 70s and 80s of rugby I watched with mucho gusto!

Absolute rubbish physically the game has changed massively today's collisions are much bigger than in the 80/90s

Were seeing many more injuries now than previously as a result of a dwindling pool of players getting a hammering week in week out with little respite and often playing with an injury. Allowing those types of tackles is not going to improve the situation nor make the game better.