I hope he now becomes a target for every team in SL and if this kicks off a season of players whining to the ref i hope he gets a good fooking hiding because it will ruin the game.

I cant see how players punching can be classed as not as bad as a wing tackle

I've said that many, many times.

Only in RL can you be sent to the bin for lying on someone for a second longer than the ref says but not for punching someone?

I never saw anyone look as frightened as Jon Wilkin did coming out at last year's Grand Final, and he was only playing on Paul Deacon. A hardcase when he's part of a strong team. Otherwise, he runs to the refereee for protection. What a soppy cock.

My personal favorite Wilkin moment was the open handed slap from Keith Senior that sent him tumbling to the deck.

Bless him

One of the most pathetic moments i have ever seen .He went down easier than a italian footballer

Lima must appeal regardless of it being thrown out or not. Even if he got his ban increased it'd be worth the appeal on the off chance we can get him back for the WCC game.

I can't really comment on the incidents because i've seen neither but appeals normally work with the RFL so why not.

Just a bit of cummin's spite after the Eastmond news.

I'd probably agree with that.

Red Hall

you're not a joke because a joke is funny

If Ryan Bailey had committed the same offence you would be calling for his head. Now I know you will all deny this but it lets face it, you would.

2 games is very harsh. 1 game would have been enough. I hope one of the matches aren't for the Jon Wilkin non-event.

How do you know.

Let's face it, you don't, do you?

Prat.

He pleaded guilty so I don't know if he CAN appeal

Bailey ??

You need be a scum half or on the floor for big bad Bailey to act aggressive.

hes a bigger girl than wilkins

We could always do a swap with them. We can have Ryan Bailey, and Leeds can have some of Jeff Lima's shyt.

There used to be two sorts of players that fans of the opposition love to hate. The first are hated because they're feared; in other words, they're capable of brilliant play or the kind of inspired performance that can turn the game around.

The other kind are hated because they're niggly, cheapshot b@stards of average ability.

Now we have a third kind - niggly, cheapshot b@stards of average ability who go crying to the ref to report a foul that never happened.

How long does it usually take for a club to appeal against a ban?

With Jeff Lima being new to the competition and with the alleged incident on Wilkin dividing opinion it would seem there may be adequate grounds for appeal?

So are we saying that if it's seen and penalised on the day (A Penalty is given bear in mind not even a Sin-Bin!) that this is the equivalent of it not being seen and getting a 1/2/3 match ban afterwards?

My point is that numerous other chicken wing tackles were penalised at Cardiff by the Referee, yet not 1 of these has been referred to the BEAK.
If it's only worth a Penalty within the game, how can it be worth a suspension when reviewed after?

Lima plays for us but the others dont?

I worry a little that we won't bother because on the Sky website it mentions Murphy from Wakefield will appeal his ban yet theres no mention of Lima appealing his.

We also didn't appeal Coleys ban last season when it seemed a very harsh decision.

Hope i'm wrong.

Because Whingin' Wilkin wasn't involved to ensure it was put on report?

my point is that if the ref sees it and gives a penalty, and DOESNT put it on report.....thats end of.

if its put on report......penalty or no penalty , then they look at it and decide if theres a case.

in this case we have a 3rd option.........the player whinges to the ref.

im not defending these decisions......im making a point.........but the common denominator in our posts is...LACK OF CONSISTENCY

No it's not. It's still looked at.

Personally, I'm not bothered if he got 1/2/3 matches etc, that's the judicary's discretion.

What I want to know is why "X" amount of other players were also penalised/warned about "Chicken Wing" tackles yet none were brought before the BEAK?

If a referee gives a penalty for a Head High it can be reviewed later and the player can be charged? If this is so, how come none of the others were brought up?
Are the referees/judicary panel saying that these players were penalised on the day incorrectly? Because surely id they were chicken wings then the BEAK would have charged them?
It seems strange then that EVERY PENALTY given for that offence over the weekend was incorrectly given (Otherwise they would have been reviewed & Charged) then and the 2 x that weren't given were deemed worthy of a suspension.