A bloody disgrace......one rule for one.

Laughing stock is the RFL.

what was the tackle head high or spear ?

late apparantly ,i was at the game and can recall myler been knocked on his backside after kicking down field but it didnt look any different to anything you see in most games although it was on the halfway line and myler had his back to me so i didnt see how ferres had caught him

What a bunch of drama queens you Yorkshire lot are! Stosic is going to be playing for Wakey at the weekend. He had no fracture or break. There's no such thing as 'nearly breaking' a bone! Presumably he might have a shiner when he plays. But if he doesn't, you might just consider that the whole thing wasn't anywhere near as bad as some people would like to believe!



Oh, and PS: Fa'as was banned for one match earlier in the season for a chicken wing tackle. So you see we get bans as well!

i'd agree with cas fans. cunningham took a cheap shot at a guy while he was getting up. it was blatent for all to see, yet gets nothing. ferris gets 1 match ban for atackle no one remembers. it stinks.

Well of course you do! Everyone does! Because Cunningham plays for Saints and at all costs, Saints must be stopped. However, of all our players, I would say Cunningham (and Wellens is another) is so NOT a cheap shot player. Wilkin, yes; Cunningham, no. Everyone who accuses him of that is talking out of their arris.

get over yourself you sound like a wigan fan,i can assure you nobody in cas gives a flying one about saints as where no threat to you neither is wakefield,what cunningham did deserved a ban and your right he`s not a cheap shot bloke but that shouldnt be enough to give him emunity from ever getting a ban.

That old chestnut. Someone disagrees so they must be against Saints. I'm not fussed about Saints and their success, fair play to them.



I just don't see the equality in the system where Player A can get away with punching someone in face deliberately, regardless of injury or not, whilst player B gets cited and banned for an accidental high tackle with no maliciousness intended and a fairly good previous record.

Cunningham has a very good record. Also, he didn't 'get away with it'. He got a formal caution. That's on his record for the next three months, which means that if he does anything wrong again, he could well get a ban (where he might not have done had he not had the caution on his record). The RFL stated that they were giving Cunningham the benefit of the doubt where intent was concerned. They believe he did not intend to hit the eye but they did call the action reckless, which it was. It was a reckless action borne out of frustration. Had the RFL believed Cunningham had been aiming for the eye, which would have been a malicious thing to do, then he would have been banned.

oh would I like to see the roses games back on

Ferres's was reckless. He did not intend to hit the head. So it's still the same thing dressed up.



The only difference is that one was deliberate, the other wasn't. The latter got the worst punishment. It's unfair.