Just watched the 'incident' now!
Oh f***** dear! Jokers!!!!

Can't go in third man around the legs. You run the risk of getting a ban. Don't they view it as premeditated contact

I haven't seen the incident (anyone got a link?) and I hate the cannonball tackle and think it should be punished much more heavily than a shot to the head. However, just because a player comes in round the legs as 3rd man it's not automatically a dangerous tackle. If a player comes in from the side and attacks the side of the knee, that is dangerous because knees shouldn't bend that way. Coming in from behind is different and only becomes dangerous if the other players effecting the tackle then push the player back over himself.

Its on Hulls website.Ridiculous decision

Just seen it. Nothing tackle, he takes his time, comes from behind, clamps the legs rather than hits through them, and they bring the attacker down in a controlled manner. If every player who did a tackle like that got picked out there would be 50 bans per week.

That said Tansey's ban for a "push" on the ref is even worse. I don't know if anyone else has seen it but Roby is running backwards straight into him and Tansey puts his hands out to stop him. Paea's ban might be a bad decision, but I don't think I've seen a worse decision than that one.

That's possibly the worst decision I've ever seen! They should be ashamed of themselves! I could look through all the weekends games and find 100 similar incidents. They have well and truly lost the plot and are ruining the game. Absolute clowns the lot of them.

Have a look at this on the HDM website. Spot the difference www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... y.html?001 One gets nothing another gets a 2 match ban. Love to know how the RFL can justify this inconsistency.

Have a look at this on the HDM website. Spot the difference www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... y.html?001 One gets nothing another gets a 2 match ban. Love to know how the RFL can justify this inconsistency.

One plays for Hull the other for Wigan

Flowers second one is dirty. No attempt to make a tackle, just drives his shoulder through. Textbook cannonball.

Think he got sin binned, would have taken that for Micky

Quote ="Dave K."Have a look at this on the HDM website. Spot the difference www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... y.html?001 One gets nothing another gets a 2 match ban. Love to know how the RFL can justify this inconsistency.'" Penalty and yellow card apparently for the second one, but from the panel? "No charge - Level of force used is not overly excessive. Force is applied in the direction of the knee joint. Sin Bin Sufficient." So that's OK then. I'm not moaning just because its a Hull player banned. If this is the actual approach in 2014, let's at least make it consistent across all teams. I wonder how many 2 match bans will be handed out next week?

Quote ="Dave K."Have a look at this on the HDM website. Spot the difference www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... y.html?001 One gets nothing another gets a 2 match ban. Love to know how the RFL can justify this inconsistency.'" Penalty and yellow card apparently for the second one, but from the panel? "No charge - Level of force used is not overly excessive. Force is applied in the direction of the knee joint. Sin Bin Sufficient." So that's OK then. I'm not moaning just because its a Hull player banned. If this is the actual approach in 2014, let's at least make it consistent across all teams. I wonder how many 2 match bans will be handed out next week?

well that's fair enough and all well and good, but will we see all players going in as third man getting a 2 game ban? thought not, especially if you are a wigan player

i don't care what the rules are as long as they are applied consistently

Where's that rule then? It happens in 90% of tackles. It's been banned below the knee in the NRL, but not here.

He should have got 6 games.



But in all seriousness it's nothing like a cannonball what so ever. I bet secretly the appeal panel thought there was nothing in it but found themselves in a tricky situation in that they either back their colleagues up or make them look like clueless fools.
I would imagine if they agreed with the first panel that they would have thrown another game at him.

I reckon you're not far off there, although if he received the maximum punishment for that grading would they have been able to ban him for an extra game?

As stated a few days ago the system is unfit for purpose as unfortunately it is, and always has been, unable to mete out punishments in a consistent and fair fashion. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the steady stream of evidence is that the system is essentially corrupt and bent.

Credit to Hull for publicising their obvious disgust at this contemptible joke of a procedure.

Unable = unwilling?

Without doubt as the sentence that followed confirmed.

Agree with that. This needs to be brought further into the open. McIlorum got only 3 matches for breaking someones jaw. 2 matches for an innocuous third man tackle is insane. Welham didn't get a ban for a headbutt, so on what basis are punishments meted out?

The whole disciplinary system needs a thorough examination by those in power. Irrespective of the fact that Mickey is our player, I would have challenged the decision because the original one was wrong and the fact the second panel agreed tells me everything about them.

Anyone looking at that would be more than justified in thinking the system is bent. Both incidents are against the same team 1 week apart. In the Wigan incident the players all appeal and a penalty and sin bin follow. In the Hull incident not a single player appeals for anything and a penalty isn't given. Wigan incident no resulting ban. Hull incident is a 2 match ban.

The level of incompetence is just astounding.

It's not incompetence. It's entirely deliberate.

And for the record, Tansey's ban is even more of a joke.

That's a huge part of it for me. FC did exactly right to appeal it, on the basis that the maximum for the grade (which Paea got) can't be increased.

The original decision was wrong, certainly based on the precedent of the Flower one from the week before, but one set of judges are going to back their mates, especially in the RFL backyard.

The whole process is flawed imho, and needs a rapid overhaul, before it gets any worse.

It certainly is. Wonder what would have happened if the now departed Sam Tomkins had tried to avoid a nasty collision in the same way last season ?

It does Chris, it is a massive flaw in protecting players, whilst allowing the game to retain its physical nature. If Paea had come in from the other side, he would have been cleared as the video is inconclusive. You know my thoughts based on last year - I came home with a players blood on my shirt when an off the ball happened right in front of me where I was stood on the touchline; but because it wasn't on the dvd it was NFA.