burybabe wrote:
Disciplinary process not worth the paper it's written on.
Typical RFL total joke. Different rules for SL Clubs especially when they are in danger of relegation.
There also appear to be different rules applying to different SL clubs.
Jamie Acton got
NINE matches for lifting up an apparently concussed Greg Bird (yes, the same one!) in Perpignan. I say 'apparently' concussed, because it turned out that he wasn't. Coincidentally, Leigh scrum half Ben Reynolds was injured (broken nose) in that seemingly reckless, high, late challenge by Bird, which had 'apparently' concussed Bird.
Acton deserved suspending, because Bird could have been injured, and his actions could have had serious consequences. But
NINE matches, when the player wasn't injured? Acton/Leigh appealed, and the ban was increased to
FOUR MONTHS (effectively
ELEVEN matches - including a potential £1 Million game, that he would have been available for, on the nine match ban!) Ironically, Bird's suspension for a highly dangerous challenge, is
REDUCED on appeal, so that he would be available for that £1 Million game.
By the way, I also have sympathy for your statement about Championship clubs receiving heavier suspensions. Obviously the RFL consider players from those clubs punch harder, tackle harder, trip more violently etc than SL players!!
It's a strange one, because you could argue that the 'misdemeanours' of SL players are seen by a wider audience, (by SKY & BBC viewers and larger crowds) than those of Championship clubs. Therefore the actions of SL players are bringing the game into greater disrepute, than those of Championship players. Of course, you also could argue that the actions of the RFL bring the Sport into greater disrepute, than the actions of any of those players, at any level!!
