Before posting why not check the details of the case as posted on the RFL website and in particular the two statements below

The Panel state they have watched the video carefully and given careful consideration to what they have heard. They are satisfied dangerous contact was made, and do not accept the player lost his footing. It can be seen from the video the player makes a sweeping action with his left leg, and therefore has no control of his bodyweight.[u It is accepted the contact was not intentional however defenders have a duty of care when tackling opposing players.-[/u
Reasons for Decision
The Panel state they have found this decision very difficult, and have given it careful consideration. [uThe Panel give the player credit for his good character, previous disciplinary record, and remorse shown to the opposing player.[/u It must be noted that the injury caused was very serious and will result in a lengthy absence. The Panel state on this occasion they have decided to go outside of the grading and believe a 4 match suspension and £300 fine is appropriate.

Yeah, that is more of a suggestion than a confirmation. Or maybe even just a backside-covering caveat, which is how I've been using it.

And we're in a grump with inference at the moment.

In fairness to NottsTiger, he shares our view on the evidence available to us not justifying the decision. His theory is internally consistent - that nobody could make that call based on just that evidence, so there must be other evidence. We're just more willing to entertain the notion that the disciplinary committee might not have done its job with competence and/or integrity. If other evidence does turn up, even considering that possibility might look harsh.
Tbh, if there were more compelling evidence it'd be a relief in some ways, for all that it might make my (thoroughly caveated, but still intense) outrage look ridiculous. It isn't nice thinking the system is that flawed.
There's still be the issue of the pre-judged appeal as well, so overall my inference is less optimistic.

I never really understood the 'pre judged' appeal to be honest.
Of course, to some extent, an appeal is always slightly influenced by the fact there must have been a 'guilty' verdict otherwise there wouldn't be an appeal.
However, your chairman seems to be suggesting that the OUTCOME of the appeal was actually decided before the appeal hearing (ie they decided that the ban would stand before the hearing). If this is true, he should have made this the focus of his argument, rather than the more melodramatic statements about Powell and boycotting the return fixture that were always going to look like he was just throwing his teddy out of the cot and having a meltdown.

In other news, according to "rumours" it appears Shenton's injury may not be a serious as first thought. He is going to be out for some time, but about four months rather than the nine originally thought (the injury may not require surgery apparently). I imagine your chairman will be moaning about that next!

So because Shenton's injury is not as serious as first thought then Boudebza's ban should also be reduced. After all the ban is supposed to reflect the seriousness of the injury according to the clowns at Red Hall.

Good point. It hadn't really occurred to me that that could happen... Dangerous from the rfl to set that precendent.

Bit underlined - yep that is my reading of it.

I agree that (based on the evidence available) Rovers issue is with the RFL much, much more than Castleford; with the (seemingly) poor initial decision and (accusations of) serious breaches of process. Powell's bellyaching isn't at all unusual among coaches (our own among them at times over the years) - what is shocking that it [iseems[/i to have such a profound impact. Not his fault if the RFL take his word as law.

I hope Shenton is back on the pitch as soon as possible.