Charged, grade D.

Wire fan here.



When i saw the replay i was convinced this was going to be a straight red. We were luck he got a yellow. That said I am a little surprised at the severity of the grading but as a sport we do need to take concussion seriously, and if this is how the RFL continues to deal with these incidents (Late and direct contact with the head) then no arguments from me.



I was surprised that the OP is trying to measure this against Ferres offence tho.

You can misinterpret as much as you like I was merely making the point that what Ferres did was wrong and punished but I do not think he went out to injure to that extent, but on reflection was an extreme incident that could have had far more significant consequences to Gildart and thankfully it appears he should make a full recovery. For me Ferres should not get a 6 or 8 week ban he should have got a ban until the injured player is fit to return plus 2 weeks i.e. if Gildart is out for 3 months Ferres should also be out for 3 months plus an additional ban - That would make him think before he does that again.

An attack to the head on a charging 17stone heap of muscle was IMHO intentional and extremely dangerous and while Sutty will probably only be out a week or so I think what Westwood did deserves a much more severe punishment than 5 weeks and more importantly how do Leeds benefit from that piece of Referee mismanagement. Perhaps he should get a 5 week ban plus a ban from playing against Leeds for the rest of the season, which is likely only to be once more in the hope that Wire get a middle eights tasting session!! of humble pie just like leads got and deserved last year.

How have i misinterpreted your OP?



I was merely implying that the two offences bear no resemblance. They don't.



FWIW i tend to agree that when a player inflicts a serious injury then his ban should reflect the period of absence that the injury he inflicts make necessary.



I don't understand your point that that shouldn't apply to Westwood and in fact he deserves more than that though.

Because, but for bad luck, Ferres could have committed the very same tackle on Gildart with no injury ensuing and Gildart playing the next game for Wigan. Are you saying, under this circumstance, that Ferres should have received no ban at all?



I think the OP is suggesting that there has to be a balance of punishment fitting the crime, with an added tariff for heinous crimes whereby the perpetrator cannot play before the victim gets back on the field. However, this would undoubtedly cause problems if someone's career is ended (Lance Hohaia (sp)anyone?)

He's got 4 matches.

he got off lightly

he's 16 stone and an has never been described as a heap of "Muscle"

Ive seen him in Mcdonalds....









How bizarre that's the same rule for every other player that gets banned and has been since time began..... just Like singleton's ban didn't benefit Catalan, Just Like Wire didnt benefit from Glenn Stewarts ban etc etc etc what an odd statement.....





.



Humble Pie...!!!!! oh yes because Wire fans, the players and the club are famous for bragging about our League title wins aren't we.

The pie wasn't even invented the last time we won the league.....

Fair points. In the case of Ferres and others I think they should serve a minimum ban of x games which is then extended until the injured player has played twice. So for Ferres he misses 6 minimum, if gildart does not play again this season, neither does Ferres. That would make players think twice. In the case of say flower he would have had to appeal what would be in effect a life ban. Sounds harsh but would help cut this stuff out IMO.

Why would he? Hohaia played again for Saints after that incident.

I'd bring out the dunking stool.



If he sinks, he's a wizard and will drown.

If he floats, he's a wizard and will be drowned.