There's a link on page 3 of this thread Budgie of the incident.

Whilst I can't complain too much about the charges on our players, I find it hard to accept that Josh Barlow only gets 2 matches for running on as a sub to join in a fight.

Dan Fleming was also cited 6 times in the same match, surely some sort of record! Was cited for 2 separate counts of punching (found guilty of both) and 4 separate counts of leading with the elbow (charged with 1) and yet only misses 2 matches.

Zach Johnson also found guilty of punching but received no ban.

Hard not to feel as though we have ended up coming off much worse in the disciplinary from a fight that appeared to be equally ill disciplined from both sides



Ah well, guess we will have to take it on the chin. At least Gaz and Micky should be back for the London game!

Cheers Ian, hard to see everything clearly, but looks like he does 'loes the plot' on the touchline (knees/kicking out ?)..... But for only 'throwing punches' I've seen a lot worse, and not for 3 or 4 game bans. I guess they must take the players 'previous history' into account, but at the end of the day a 'punch is a punch' impeccable record/self defence or not.

Well i think we came off alot better than people thought. Its a bonus to only get 3 for gaz, and micky can certainly do with a rest. Obviously not so good for acton.

I would have given him another 3 matches for his silly theatrics of stating that he put the player to sleep / knocked out.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

MoiMoi and Weston are model professionals who play hard and take it hard. Why do we have to have players with potential having to play the part of Mr Big in todays era of RL.

You just cannot get away with it now, and I hope Derek has internally fined them. Play like this in the middle 8's, forget it !

Jamie will know he was wrong and despite that it well help in the the long run.

He'll be back for the middle 8's and I think he's our most improved forward this season.

Sorry about it but he will have a point to prove come August. Lets wait and see.

Thats the difference between a Grade B and a D. Grade B being striking or punching,Grade D being sustained punching ie: multiple punches with nothing coming back.

The sad fact is the disciplinary saw it differently. Part of the Swinton players' defence was that it was in retaliation, which I think the details on the RFL site shows as being a consideration for leniency. Would seem the RFL think our players were main instigators.

I thought their played was striking Acton without Acton initially striking back

Cheers for that.

He gets pulled to ground and takes a right pounding why he's down there.Drags himself up and commits the Grade D.There is a misinterpretation in this thread though regarding the silly theatrics.Acton is actually telling him he can only hit someone when they are down,hence the hands.

Swinton got away with that big time,courtesy of the camera angle.

I am Jamie Acton's biggest fan and have said on here a couple of times that I believe he can be as good a player as he wants to be. Unfortunately the reputation he now has to live down is one that it is very easy to get him wound up to the point where the red mist descends - with the obvious consequences. If Championship opposition can easily trigger this reaction then how much easier will it be for higher grade opponents?

Reference has been made on this thread to our model pro's - Dayne and Fui. Jamie does have a great deal to learn from these guys if his career is not to be blighted by a bad disciplinary reputation. He has the ability to be remembered as a great player, quite apart from the fact that he stands to receive far greater rewards in all respects if he can control his reactions.

It is now almost forgotten, but I understand Fui went through a catalogue of serious disciplinary issues as a result of on field offences in his early career. Fui got through it to become a legend in the sport - there is no better role model for Jamie to follow.

I totally agree with Snowy and Mr PTB. In fact, I said almost the same last season about Acton especially. He's young and has plenty time to get his discipline sorted. With Hock, though, I am afraid he'll never shake off his rep'. And neither does it seem like he really wants to.

In all this there is no talk of how all this started. I have watched the footage enough to give me a headache and for me AJ is the one who started to throw the punches. I can't make out what made him do it. Maybe he needs to have a talking to and have a word with himself as two of his team mates now have considerable bans.

The only major problem we have had this year to date is v Swinton. The only problem Bradford have had this year was v Swinton. Enough said.

Our game v Bradford at the bash was played hard and fair with nothing of any note for the ref to deal with.

I'm sure Higson has had many a talking too,not the first time is it! Acton not helping himself with the short fuse but not being helped by others with even shorter fuses.
Don't bother winding the forwards up,just go for the winger and the rest will follow naturally.

i wonder if this means that the game can now be put on LCTV as we pay for it i find it a little irritating that we should be censored in what games we are allowed to see and what somebody deems we are not allowed to see.
The hearing is finished whats done is done fair or unfair lets see the game

Higsons oppo had given him a dig a few minutes earlier and then did so again, no reaction again from the tool with the whistle so he must have thought fekk it.

Littler made direct contact with the head when Pownall scored - nothing done. Elbows high shots and niggle galore - nothing done. I have every confidence that with competence in the middle we don't have a problem, maybe we should take a leaf out of soccer and start rolling around like we've been shot

Fully understand the frustration all round whether it be the competence of officials, opposition tactics, who is to blame within our own squad or whether we have been dealt with fairly by the RFL Disciplinary system.

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and need to take responsibility for our 'red mist actions' - like channeling the aggression into an impact on the score board rather than tarnishing the reputation of the club and having important members of the squad missing for weeks on end.

It is even more important when we are coming up to the most crucial part of the season and for that matter the club's recent history. We shall need everyone available and more importantly fully match fit, to give ourselves even a 'fighting chance' (please excuse the pun).

Or maybe we shouldn't rise to Stu's game plan. We have been using it and played against it for god knows how many years. The only way that teams like Swinton will ever beat Leigh is if we field the players wife's and girlfriends or we succumb to their niggling tactics. I find it very frustrating that the player who was doing all the pushing and got dropped by Jamie was involved in three separate tussles in that brawl and can be see grinning at the end. Job done. Funny that people have said he is a Bradford player. Make of that what you will. Derek was spot on also about the standard of play and to some extent the reffing at Blackpool. I have watched that game and our draw at their place and I have to say both are two of the most exciting straight up games I have watched from our comp this year.

RL's decisions, enough said !

That isn't exactly a massive disagreement with the inference of my statement that I thought it might have been

I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories and slagging off the disciplinary panel but this really is an odd decision with Acton & Fleming. Fleming guilty of fighting twice, once being the instigator and once running in, and striking with the elbow gets a 2 match ban, Acton is guilty of fighting once and striking with the knees gets a 7 match ban. If both those players got 2 games I'd be pleased to get Jamie back but think they got off very lightly, if both got 7 I'd think it very harsh but probably fair enough as this isn't what we want in our sport, but to give one player 2 and one player 7 is just utterly farcical. It is almost as if a completely different set of people made the decision using completely different editions of the sentencing guidelines.

And there lies the problem with inconsistent disciplinary panel decisions.
Match review panel isn't fit for purpose, folk who dish the games/fines out also not fit to run a bath.
Trouble is clubs just laugh at other clubs when they boo about a bad/unfair decision but then when it happens to your club it hurts.
Something needs to be done but the clubs that complain year after year just keep on complaining without getting full support of all clubs for a fair and just system.
We don't want an advantage, just consistency imo.

Peter

Welcome back and a very good post Peter