Seems harsh that.

Maybe the RL are trying to send out a message about head high tackles in particular

Lets get this decision into perspective
Patton gets a 5 game ban for a head high shot whilst the game was in full motion and he had no real time to pre meditate his actions
Where as Watts deliberately walks up to Crosby and head butts him and only gets a 3 game ban?
Maybe thoughts don't go through Watt's head very quickly but he certainly had time to change his thought process and refrain from Nutting Crosby

I suspect the fact that it wasn't a full-blooded headbutt by Watts was mitigation to its premeditation. And conversely the lack of intent by Patton was offset by the force of impact and consequences for Faraimo.

Patton fully deserves 5 matches. He intentionally smashes Faraimo in anger (fist clenched says it all) and now our player misses a game and has probably suffered some form of trauma that will have lasting effects in years to come

Watts was a fookin idiot but just sort of plants his head heavily (it wasnt a head butt) on Crosby, no ones koncked out, no one will have lasting effects - 3 matches is fair though if anything but to teach Watts a lesson

Think both are a bit harsh, saying that as stupid as Watts was, it was a harmless headbutt and didn't hurt anyone, whilst Pattons could have broke Faraimo jaw, made him go off and will put him out for at least a week.

I've have given Watts 2 and Patton 2/3

I'm sure faraimo would disagree

Given him brain damage, could have ended his career, will likely cause him long term health issues.............

He had time to clench his fist, he had time to decide whether to ignore the refs held call, he had time to decide whether to tackle round the legs or swing with a clenched fist directly to the head of a human being.
I guess you're the type that would hand a £100 fine for someone who drives their car and in full motion decides to run someone over.

the RFL specifically state that severity of injury is taken into account.
Go bother to read up on the operational rules know nowt!

2 games for that assault by Patton ... Clueless!

So, if it's a first offence and you don't have the long wrap sheet with a penalty notice like that you'd get the lower end of the penalty. For a Grade C offence it's 2-3 matches so without the previous he's have got 2 matches.
Patton got graded D, that carries a tariff of 3-5 matches. Turns out he's got previous as well so he cops the full 5 matches.

Took me a while, but now I know you are simply trolling.

The fact that Patton recklessly swings his arm into the face of Faraimo already dictates its pre meditated, unless of course Patton had never played the game before and had no idea of the rules regarding head contact.

Factor in that the referee had actually called held and was pointing to Faraimo to go back to his mark (ball carrying arm made contact with the ground), will have meant Faraimo was in a slightly relaxed position. I heard the officials call in the stands, so Patton will have heard it being only yards from the referee.

Factor in the damage caused by Patton resulting in Faraimo being lead from the field and being unavailable for at least one more game due to concussion rules, which was far worse than Watts going forehead to forehead with Crosby.

If Watts had genuinely wanted to injury an opponent with a head butt, he would have butted him on the nose or at least in the face (if you want an example of this I seem to remember an incident between Steve Hampson and Gary Freeman in a GB v NZ game in the late 80's, now that was a head butt).

I respect your opinion Dave, but 2/3 for Patton, I wholeheartedly disagree.

I love the fact that once someones disagrees with your opinion, you cry about it and go with the line I am allowed an opinion, but the other way around you call people clueless for having an opinion.

I don't think it was an assault, he has a good record, he got sent off, so probably 3 games would have been fair IMO.

No he doesn't, he has 2 previous incidents on his record hence getting the higher of the possible number of bans.

Can't really argue with either IMO.
Sinfield got 2 games for an even more innocuous butt on Luke Dorn a few years back, throw in Watts' previous and 3's not inconsistent with that.
And although Patten's 5 games might have been deemed harsh a few years ago it's now pretty much the case that tackles that are malicious, dangerous, illegal and result in injury are likely to attract that kind of response from the RFL.

I would like to see a system where one of those games was held in reserve for the next time the teams met, as it's unfair that the offended-against team's rivals should benefit. That said, having seen Patton's performance before his dismissal you'd probably prefer that he did play. Whereas Wire might prefer it if Watts didn't.

i reckon the clenched fist was more for trying to knock the ball out of his grasp rather than knock him out, bear in mind dec's a fairly small halfback against a bloody big winger. I've seen defence for other offences in the past where they've stated smaller players have tried to be aggressive standing up against opposition forwards, that's had varying degrees of success.

Very interested to read the notes from the comittee

and here we are



Well, they've set the bar now haven't they. i think its a bit harsh to say he's got previous on his record for striking as that was for tripping.

Ah well.

Slight contradiction to say [i"provided that Mr Patton’s arm is going down in an attempt to wrap up the ball"[/i, but then later [i"The player states he was unaware of where the ball is when making the tackle" [/i

Before Id seen the verdict, The clenched fist issue is not relevant when its the inside of the elbow / bicep area which clatters Faraimo's jaw. The Still pic which is on the BBC website and this thread shows Pattons fist so far away from the ball it would be laughable to suggest its any attempt to knock the ball out.


But, I know quote the Warrington coach

"Mr Price does go onto say however that as pointed out within the still picture provided that Mr Patton’s arm is going down in an attempt to wrap up the ball and his left foot is planted on the ground."

If Pattons arm is in a downward motion, then it must have been a windmill type action to end up in the position it is.

The verdict basically concludes that Mr Prices is lying.

Fair enough Karen, I'll move him up to 4.

patton was definitely intending to give faraimo a good crack with his arm. You don't try and effect a tackle with a clenched fist

Correct there mate, I'm a Cas fan and seriously Sinfield merely brushed his forehead against Dorn's cheek more in frustration than anything else. On the other hand when you look at Lockers decapitation of Annikin you have to ask why Patton got 5. Maybe cos he doesn't play for Wigan.

Patton springs up on to his toe on the left foot and his right foot is completely off the ground a split second before that actual still photo, in other words if he was doing what Price says he's doing his feet do not leave the ground, he's a lying bstd and Patton shot is a disgrace.
Can't believe Radford is defending Patton

I think this is why Radford actually carries a fair amount of respect with the other coaches, he will not slag off the opposition (irrespective of being given the opportunity to) and prefers to focus on his own players.