Yes



If a player lets his side down he has to be punished. If we have a "boys club" in terms of who gets away with what then the game really will go down the toilet

Forgot how bad that was - the ref (Holdsworth??) got a bit of shoving of his own going on - you wouldn't see Ganson risking his good looks by getting in the middle like that today.



I agree that if a players career is ended by the tackle then no, the offending player should not be banned for life, at least not automatically. If the offense is stupidly aggressive and pre-meditated though why not? If you deliberatly end someones career why should you be allowed to play again? Do we really want these people in our sport? Say for instance that Issac Luke had broken Chases leg and that meant Chase couldnt play again. Surely its fair to stop Luke playing as he did it on purpose. It was OTT and deliberate.



As for if a player isnt injured then clearly there should still be a penalty. I would hope that the penalty would fit the crime in these instances. If, for example, Chase's tackle had just given Ropati a little tooth ache then you could argue three matches was sufficient.

We should go to an eye for an eye system, where if your badly injured by serious foul play, then you get 1 free shot at someone, and its televised on boots and all.

I don’t think that damage done should really be used when deciding the punishment for the offending player, the damage a player suffers is more luck than judgement. Look at the injury Paul Deacon suffered in the tri-nations a few years ago. 99 times out of 100 that tackle doesn’t result in an injury, that time it resulted in a life-threatening facial injury.



Would it be fair to have seen a severe ban handed out to Joe Vagana for that high tackle when there will be 99 which are exactly the same which result in no injury (and as such no/a low ban)



Or take striking, is it really fair that a player who swings, connects, and knocks the other out is punished more harshly than a player who swings, and just catches a player? That almost seems a reward for the second player being a bit rubbish at fighting.

It would have been totally unfair to ban Big Joe, as it was of course Nigel Vagana that did it !

What a strange comment. Care to enlighten us?

Don't they do literature in Hull?

I'd have thought most people would have recognised this (mis)quote.

I'm fully aware where the quote comes from. I just don't see the relevance.

dannatt copped a 8 match ban for it

The implication, I would have thought,(unless Tad proves me wrong) is that 'marquee' players are treated differently to the average prole in the game, despite a system which should guarantee fair treatment for all. Seems relevant enough to me.

And for a similar offence, at around the same time, Les Boyd got 15 months in Australia. If Dannatt had received the same ban it would have put the $h!ts up all the **s that made a living hitting better players in the face after the ball had gone.

so easy someone from hull should of got it