I believe the rules state that a team shall have a maximum of 13 PLAYERS in the pitch NOT that there should only be 13 members of the playing staff on the pitch. Common sense (and IMHO an interpretation of the rules) would dictate that Salford had 14 players (actively involved in the game) on the pitch whereas Bradford only had 13. result = Salford broke the rules, bradford didnt. As for getting money back for only having 12.....rules stat MAXIMUM is 13.

Yet he didn't get a ban. Strange.

This is a player that plays for Cas a team not well known for being the darling of the RFL. Even stranger.

Or it's not what you say it is.

Your choice.

Come on, that's clutching at straws, they had 14 on the pitch whatever you want to call them. Should be a smaller fine, as operational rule breach, but with lesser potential significance. There's the consistency and we all move on.







It was a hit to the head, perhaps not intentional, but he was charged, and only got off with a ban due to an early guilty plea.

But then every team in SL will be fined whenever they make a substitution for a serious injury. The 4th official always let the subs come on before the injured player leaves the field.

OK let's agree Bradford should be fined on a sliding-scale of culpability. Let's call it a quid then,eh? You're embarrassing yourselves!

Leeds had 14 men on the pitch in the CC vs Hudds. I think Bails came on whilst Delaney was being helped from the pitch and the people helping Delaney across the pitch had the audacity to cut a corner whilst play was going on. Disgusting. Obviously Leeds haven't received a fine cos they own the RFL.

Dear Red League,



Please wind your neck in. This is all becoming a bit embarrassing.



Many thanks,



Salford Fans.

Clearly not the same issue. Can't believe this has managed 5 pages.

Is that what happened? If not, it's about as irrelevant as this thread

Well said.

Do you think that perhaps Red League is actually Dr. Cowcash.

Would certainly explain why he's so far up his arris.