Normally I'd be going mental about the length of the ban for 'offensive' language but in this case if it gives us the option but get rid of a player that has been average taking a quota spot and a wedge of cash I'm happy it's happened.

What an odd RL world we are now in, where using 'unacceptable' language against an opponent is seen as SIX times more punishable than if you attempt to finish his career through an illegal tackle?



Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the days when you had to gouge a fella's eye out in order to get the sort of ban that McGuire has copped for here...

I agree DSM. Unacceptable language should be punished but how it is considered worse than physical assaults (including those with attacks on genitalia) seems disproportionate. Having said all that, Maguire was given a chance and blew it. The fact that it involved the same player suggests stupidity of the highest order..at best.

I suspect the club will have to wait on the result of an appeal, if that's what Mcguire is planning on doing.

I'm certainly not condoning McGuire's behaviour, but if I was a RL player now and someone got in my face on the pitch, as Charnley often does with opponents, then rather than bicker childishly with them, I'd simply give it 5 minutes and then kneecap him and hopefully finish his career - I'd only be looking at a 2 or 3 game ban max....

It would be interesting to see the minutes of the disciplinary hearing, to know the process by which this case was judged. If no officials heard anything (which is presumably the case, as no action was taken on the field), then were they going purely on the evidence of an opposition player or players? If so, that sets a precedent that could very easily be manipulated in future.

The hearing is chaired by a judge. They understand due process and all that.

I'm sure they do. My point is, does that 'due process' include relying on and accepting evidence that can't be viewed as impartial?

For all we know one of our own players could’ve said they heard it, someone who knows josh personally and thought that isn’t right? that would surely be the tipping point in the evidence required to find him guilty?

I think a system chaired by a judge has to be trusted.

Just being curious and playing devils advocate here,but did you say the same last year when Knowles won his appeal using the same process ?

I didn't comment on it, but yes I would have.