They're actually saying that Swift commits the misconduct by getting in the path of Lees.

Do you know our club, as crap as we are at the moment, took around 2000 fans to Wakey, what’s that around £50,000 in the opponents coffers, we may not be the darlings of the RFL, but that’s something these biased people would do well to remember. Without both Hull clubs, rugby league would be done.

Keep up the good work Cullen.

Exactly how many times have teams like ourselves, Rovers, Wakey etc had players banned for tackles deemed high when the player being tackled ducked or was falling at the point of impact. The Liam Watts one a few years ago when still playing for us being a classic example where the opposing player actually fell in to Watts yet he was binned and received a ban.

And we all thought it would be injuries that would stop Gale & Reynolds playing a full season as a half back pairing.

I

Why do people always whinge about the RFL hating us, call the disciplinary a joke etc.

Gale's foot up / studs first action was always going to end up with a ban. Complete brainfart. Then he made it worse by pulling Lomax up. If it had been the other way around the same people would be calling for a ban.

I guess it'll be five matches plus the three so he'll be back for late April or early May - unless the RFL rule the bans run concurrently which doesn't seem likely.

Yep its laughable that a player with his back turned and stationary is the one committing misconduct not the player running in and pushing said player out the way because he didn't see him? Anybody would say that is careless by not being able to stop or avoid a stationary player. I must try that if I have an accident while driving 'Sorry officer its not my fault as I had my eyes on the road and didnt see the stationary object in the way'

They aren't biased neither are the refs and neither are the Sky commentators.

Its not that Gale is being banned that's the issue for me but the severity of the ban along with the inconsistency in the offences and the differences in punishments dished out across the teams. Its seems pretty clear to me that as a club along with our neighbours across the river we seem to fair differently than the likes of St's, Leeds and Wigan when you look at comparable offences and the subsequent penalties handed out. That's not conspiracy its an honest opinion based on what is evident in both written and video form.

Not surprised with the outcome for Gale, but it seems overly harsh. 3 in total would have been about right.

The Swift incident he wasn't stationary, he deliberately cut across - if Lees had have just run into him it would have been a penalty to Saints for escorting off the ball - Saints (or more specifically, Percival) was penalised for it relentlessly at times last year, and it was no different here, except for the fact Lees took exception and pushed him.

Your car analogy doesn't work, if someone cuts across you, and instead of attempting to swerve out of the way you steered into the collision, you would rightly be at fault, but it doesnt negate the fact you were cut across in the first place ...

Irrespective to anyones thoughts on the punishment for the raised studs incident (Grade D is a little harsh to me, it could have been a grade C in my mind) I am pleased the RFL took a stance on Gale pushing the trainer out of the way and trying to pull Lomax off the ground/ not receive treatment and had a separate charge for it, was just a bit of a grubby thing to do.

and here's me thinking it was the trainer pushing Gale out of the way.

Sorry, Chris, that's just nonsense. Lets see your proof.