This.

The Watcher believes that the club must fine Acton the maximum amount they can.

Inked in as sub. for million pound game?

While you are obviously quite correct on your potential for further injury comments, I have to contest the "sparked out" remark !

IMHO Bird was never "sparked out", he was moving, he had both arms in the air & it is a widely held rumour that Bird told Acton to F.O while prostrate on the floor !
Furthermore, if Bird was "sparked out" from a head injury/concussion, why did he return to be influential & play better than he had pre 'injury' & why exactly was he allowed to return. I feel that the answer may be that he was 'NEVER' injured & was trying to deflect from his late hit on our kicker & 6 Ben Reynolds who was indeed 'actually injured.

There can be no denying that Acton deserved a ban, however how does Actons 9 SL match ban possibly compare to the 10 match ban served by Ben Flower for the outrageous & callous attack on Lance Hohaia who suffered very 'real' injury as a result ?

I dont think that many Leigh fans would be too aggrieved to see Acton receive 6 or 7 matches but 9 compared to Flowers 10 + 1 WCC is to be quite frank, ludicrous.

Definitely don't agree! I commend him for 'looking out' for his halfback if however, he has perhaps gone about it in a clumsy way. I've said before he is not receiving the same 'justice' as some of the more villainous players in the game, (I include Greg Bird in These). Jamie is the only Leigh player who would get into every other Super League team so to release him, would be unwise. I know supporters are frustrated by his continually suspensions however, he is a tremendous young British prop forward and I personally hope the club stands by him.

Who told you, Sky Television? Rugby League Express?

Totally agree Ste. BTW - This decision MUST be appealed against, and the RFL must be challenged with the best sports lawyer the club can get their hands on. What i find disturbing though, is some so called Leigh fans seem to welcome the outcome and would offload him - Well I'll tell you now, they're NOT Leigh fans at all. We'll be playing tick and pass in tutu's next.

The only thing 'cracked' in this incident is Ben Reynolds Nose after Greg Birds challenge! Nobody seems to be interested in Reynolds, I'd love to know if Ben thought it was a late high shot from 'Lazerus' !
I can 'Imagine' all kind of scenarios, lets say for instance that in the forthcoming 8s, Gaz Hock decides to challenge Luke Walsh in the same way as Bird did Reynolds and breaks Walsh's Nose! can you 'Imagine' what Sky would make of that or indeed, the rest of RL world?
I'm not sure which team you support however, I know your Coach would soon add Jamie to your squad, given half a chance

But is that a consideration that the panel consistently use? If so, how come bad cannonball tackles are only getting 1 match bans as opposed to 3 or 4?

hi Cokey,

When I suggested offloading him, it was partly tongue-in-cheek - suggesting that if he played elsewhere, his 'crimes' may be viewed more favourably. I have always maintained that he can be a top English prop, but to get there, his stupid behaviour has to be controlled. And most of it is stupid, rather than violent. He had to be suspended this time, because his actions MIGHT have had serious consequences. But nine matches is ridiculous, when he didn't actually injure the player - as indeed was his four match ban for pushing Flanagan in the back last season. (Ratchford pushed a retreating Leigh player in the back, two weeks ago, and wasn't even cited) I don't dispute that he invites disciplinary action for his misdemeanours, but it is infuriating to see other players get away with similar, and some times worse, crimes.

Take his ban for tripping, late in the Wigan game. No question that he was guilty, and deserved the suspension. Yet Richie Myler has been found guilty, by the same disciplinary process, seven, yes SEVEN, times in just over two years - and still hasn't been banned for it. So, despite his lack of discipline, I will always believe Acton is being treated differently to other players.

However, my doubt remains - can we really afford to have a good player suspended for half of each season and, if he moved to Leeds for example, would his indiscipline be treated more leniently, by the disciplinary process?

No, he was spark out as far as you're concerned, as far as Acton was concerned he'd hit his team mate late and only he'll know what state he saw Bird in.

It was a stupid thing to do, as would rather he concentrate on knocking people onto the floor, rather than grabbing people already on the floor. But thought 6-7 games would be a fairer reflection.

They probably don't visit Red Hall quite as much however, none are Angels and Hilly got clean away with elbowing one player then Head Butting another in the Widnes game! What would Jamie have got?
I saw Sims deliberately stand on a players hand! he got one/two matches? What would Jaimie have got?
Walmsley too has been up this season (cant remember the incident

)
The others have all been up too!
In Jamie's case he does NOT get treated the same and, Jamie's 'offences' are for far less serious incidents too!
p.s. Glad to see back on this Forum Harold

Yes i get all that Alan for sure,but it's time the RFL were challenged for their inconsistent punishment and unjustified bans given to Jamie. I don't condone for one minute his silly behaviour, but to receive all these bans when he hasn't even hurt anyone is getting on my T**S.

Me too, but you know what the RFL are like.

Definitely!

Lewis Galbraith, of Rochdale recently picked up an eight match ban, after a drawn out case, for Grade F "unacceptable behaviour". He appealed, and the ban was withdrawn completely. This one was about what Galbraith said/didn't say. Witnesses were adamant that they heard him say something, but an element of doubt was brought into the appeal, and the suspension withdrawn.

Let's do it.

Its a good job you don't support Catalan then! According to our friend 'Alan' Richie Myler has been charged with Tripping on [useven [/u occasions in the last two years and, he's yet to be banned for it

Seeing Jamie's (outrageous) Nine Game Ban, I wonder what a real Court would have decided on the 'Could have' 'might have' evidence? usually the Law asks has anyone been harmed or injured etc...... ?

Seeing Jamie's (outrageous) Nine Game Ban, I wonder what a real Court would have decided on the 'Could have' 'might have' evidence? usually the Law asks has anyone been harmed or injured etc...... ?

Also, we had the farce over Tony Gigot's alleged exasperated two- finger gesture to the touch judge. The officials were adamant that it was two fingers, the review panel thought so too, but Gigot maintains he stuck three fingers up at the touch judge and that introduced the element of doubt, allowing him to get away with it!

I hasten to add that I don't think Acton should be exonerated, but am sure that nine matches is too much.

=#FF0000Quite right Alan. Also Gigot got a 2 year ban for "inappropriate behaviour" towards an anti-doping officer. So because he didn't fail a drugs test, it was reduced to 3 months. Correct me if i'm wrong here, but he got a 2 year ban for "inappropriate behaviour" towards an anti-doping officer. , nothing to do with any outcome of a drugs test. So when the test was clear, it was, Oh ok we'll take 21 months off that ban now. Unbelievable.

The nine game ban is excessive, to say the least, re Jamie. I am sick and tired of reading the punishments given out to other SL players relative to players such as Jamie, Gaz Hock and Ben Westwood. All three are public enemy number 1 in the eyes of the RFL Disciplinary. They probably have posters up of them on their walls at Red Hall like those 'Wanted Dead or Alive' western ones. Last week Joe Burgess deliberately grabbed Ashton Sims hair in the middle of a melee. It wasn't even cited on this weeks hearings. Why? Because he is a current England international who plays for a high profile SL club. The same goes for Jon Bateman in the same game last week striking out in the middle of a melee. Once again nothing to be seen or done at the Disciplinary re this. Sean O'Loughlin gets similar favourable treatment. In fact Sean should take up refereeing when he retires, but then again maybe not, because after all he referees the game enough as a player during a game with his regular contesting of decisions on the field. There is clear pattern of thinking re the Disciplinary when it comes to punishing players for offences in general. The pattern is that certain high profile players will be treated more favourably, especially if they are current England internationals. Someone on this message board recently referred to the arch-tripper extraordinaire Richie Myler who never seems to receive a ban despite being a repeat offender for this offence. Richie is a current England international. Chris Hill in the Challenge Cup game against Widnes a few weeks ago deliberately raises his elbow towards the head of a Widnes player. Ok, there was no contact but the intent was there all the same. The result? You guessed it-nothing at the Disciplinary. Oh, and Chris is a current England international in case anyone needed reminding. Now taking this little snapshot of incidents and people and replacing there names with Jamie, Gaz or Ben, I would confidently say that the outcomes re appearances at the Disciplinary would be very different.
There is a clear pattern of multi-tier punishments given out to players by the RFL Disciplinary based on who you are and if you play for a high profile SL club and are also a current England international.
This season Jamie has not committed any bad, dirty tackles that I can remember, certainly not on a par with Adam Higson's rash challenge at Magic Weekend. He has been cited at every opportunity for silly stuff. Against Leeds in round 2 he knocked the ball out of a Leeds players hand to stop them taking a quick restart, and gets a yellow card and a ban. Anthony Gelling during the Leigh v Wigan game at the DW kicked a ball back onto the field of play from off the field of play knowing that by doing so that two balls would be in play, and knowing full well that the Ref would have to stop play to remove one of them. Leigh were attacking 20 metres out from the Wigan line at the time, so Wigan got an extra bit of rest. It was a professional foul that resulted in no punishment at all. Jamie shoved Flanagan of Salford in the back earlier this season, and in another game tripped a Wigan player (Burgess?) in the recent game at Leigh. There was one poor tackle he did this season, similar to a cannonball type tackle, nothing happened on the pitch re this and there was no injury to the tackled player, but then he gets cited again retrospectively and banned at the Disciplinary. Some of this was silly but hardly serious compared to a head tackle, grapple tackle or 'chicken wing' tackle. Last season Sean O'Loughlin received a one match ban for the head tackle that ended the season of the Wakefield player.
It's about time that the RFL were more consistent in their punishment of like for like offences for all players with no exceptions.
There simply should be an offence, a punishment grading, and a punishment and this should apply to all.
Generally speaking Championship players are more likely to be banned for like for like offences compared to SL players, who in many cases cop a fine. This is wrong and done probably because SL clubs are richer, and vice versa re Championship clubs.
I hope the club sticks by Jamie and appeals this excessive punishment, but at the same time I hope Jamie quickly learns to realise that like certain other players he is a marked man with the RFL. He needs to focus on his rugby and stay away from getting drawn into unnecessary incidents.

Can we think of anyone else who committed 'inapppropriate behaviour towards an anti-doping officer', got a two-year ban, and was very nearly jailed for 'virtual assault? He appealed, but his two year ban was upheld, despite not having failed a drug test.

Did he actually take the test though ??

Supposed to have offered to, when the police arrived. But I think the Drugs Agency person refused to do it!