You haven't half a twist on things to put it in your favour haven't you.
Matthew posted:
A bradford player punches a saints player, clearly believing that a punch is about to thrown at him - he gets 2 matches.
Clearly believing? Now you can read his mind? You have no idea what Platt was thinking or Fasavalu.
A saints player punches another player in the face breaking his nose - 1 match.
Extent of injury isn't a guide to go by.
A Wigan player leads with a forearm into a tackle, no damage to the player - 3 matches.
...I presume you mean Fletcher last season at Wakefield? Again, extent of injury doesn't matter, it is what could have happened. Why raise your arm to an on coming player? There's no excuse for it, was just a daft thing to do.
A saints player is found guilty of striking leaving another player unconscious for several minutes - 0 matches.
Several minutes? You pressed pause didn't you! Again, extent of injury doesn't mean a thing. His defence was probably that Richards fell into the tackle. You can't punish a player because you don't like him and because of that you think there was malicious intent. You need to be able to prove it. How can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is intent when, had the tackle been made half a second sooner, it would have been legitimate?
2 players are found guilty of betting against their team. The players receive different lengths of ban for the same offence - one of the players no longer plays for saints at this point; he receives the longer ban.
...because one was playing and the other one wasn't. Nothing to do with who they played for.
For what ever reason the saints players seem to get a more lenient treatment - do you think that Terry Newton would have got away with 3 matches for sexually assaulting another player? Fighting is to a certain extent part of the game - most people associate rugby with the occasional fight. What pryce did was considered, cowardly and frankly disgusting - pryce has a pretty poor disciplinary record - most of his offences have been for deliberate foul play; yet he escapes with a relatively light sentence; being able to return for an important game for his team.
They don't get treated any differently. Admittedly some disciplinary decisions are confusing. It depends on how the panel views it, they consist of an ex-player, an ex-official and someone with a law background. All will have a different slant on things. The lawyer will want to see concrete proof.
Why did Martin Aspinwall get away with blatently fly-kicking an opponent at 'Quins a couple of years ago? Why was Hock not suspended for repeat dangerous throws earlier on in the seaosn? I've lost track of the times I have asked these question, no-one knows how to answer them so ignores them! Can you explain it Matthew? Maybe the RFL give Wigan special treatment?
What is Leon Pryce's disciplinary record like? Is it really that bad?
Bringing up Terry Newton as a comparison is meaningless... who knows what Terry would get unless he actually committed the same offence or whether the punishment was different based on different disciplinary histories.
