Agreed and I’m just amazed at how yet again Chris Hill escapes any form of punishment

That may well happen in the semi, particularly if Connor gets in his face. Not sure Hill is a popular player with other teams, a bit like Joel Tompkins, not supposed to be tackled and tries to intimidate the ref. I remember a few years ago, FC went out to ruffle Tompkins feathers in an away game and he was sin binned, just couldn’t take it.

Harsh on Rovers for Lineham to only get 10 minutes in the game, when the panel deem it to be worthy of 240 minutes of non playing time.

Is there a case now for 1 of the games of the ban to be against the team the offence was against so they actually do get some benefit? So 2 games for Lineham now, and then his last game in the next game Vs. Rovers?

Think I read somewhere Wilde 3 that Toms third game of his ban is against rovers.

One match for Griffin. Sin bin sufficient for Green.

….. Green Quote:Reason for NFA: Player promotes open hand towards face of opponent in the tackle. Player does not throw punches. Other players from both teams run in. Sin Bin Sufficient https://www.rugby-league.com/article/55 ... iew-panel-

….. Green Quote:Reason for NFA: Player promotes open hand towards face of opponent in the tackle. Player does not throw punches. Other players from both teams run in. Sin Bin Sufficient https://www.rugby-league.com/article/55 ... iew-panel-

One match is fair enough on top of sending off which nearly cost us the game

But as I stated elsewhere, Callum Watkins received a yellow card for a very similar tackle and no further action at the disciplinary. Posters can say what they please but there’s a rule for some teams and not others. As this clearly demonstrates.

The disciplinary probably deemed that allowing Watkins to play was a greater punishment than banning him.

Had a really good view of the tackle and thought it was a red straight away.

I think 1 match is quite lenient. If it had been against one of our players we’d have been calling for blood.