2 match ban for Raynor

[jacko32]

should have been a grade D really he never even played to dislodge the ball more like tompkins jaw

[DaveO]

The real test is if the Bulls appeal. Will the RFL do the usual and automatically reduce the ban to one match? If they keep it at two, fair enough because as HC points out he will have served more than two anyway. It would make a nice change to see a player sent off AND banned AND for the ban to be upheld on appeal. Even better if the Bulls accepted it and didn't appeal.

[Kiwiseddon]

I think the difference is that other teams appeal and are successful. We don't seem to have that capacity. I think it would be shameful if the ban isn't upheld. Having watched the replay several times, at the point of contact, Sam has the ball outstretched and nowhere near his head. IMO Raynor knew exactly what he was doing and the fact that it was only a Grade B offence is all the mitigation he deserves.

[bikerharry]

I made this point in a previous thread, but I think it relevant again here. The whole argument of intent detracts from the fact that it was dangerous and stupid challenge, no matter what he intended. Had the injury to Sam been more severe, and he'd been forced out for the rest of the season, or worse case the rest of his career, would intent be as important then? Whether it was malicious or just poor technique, the punishment should reflect the possible implications of his actions, not just his intent. A two match ban is a joke, when other players have faced much lengthier bans for lesser infringements. As for the argument that Raynor has effectivly already served one of those matches with the red card, so did Sam and he'd done nothing wrong.

[cpwigan]

So many ex players, particularly ones connected with Bradford is wrong IMO. 1 ex player is ample.