Quote bulls2487="bulls2487"Really? So the 11 games Acton has got this season is down to RFL victimising Leigh?'"
I don't think Leigh are being victimised and I am not one for conspiracy theories that everyone is out to get us but there is a huge problem with the lack of transparency in these decisions.
When Acton was given a Grade C (2-3 matches) the panel gave him a 4 match ban. One of the reasons given for going outside the recommended range was that the tackle had 'potential to cause injury'. I guess that is true but thankfully Burgess was absolutely fine and played on with no problems.
However when Sean O'Loughlin was given a Grade C after he took Annakin's head off the panel again judged that they should ignore the recommended sanctions and he was only given a 1 match ban. This is despite the fact that Annakin actually WAS seriously injured and the tackle actually ended the young lads season.
So on one hand we have a player punished MORE than the recommended range because he COULD have caused an injury.
On the other hand we have a player punished LESS than recommended range despite the fact that he DID cause a serious injury and ended the other players season.
It just lacks any sort of consistency and it is extremely frustrating.
The average length of a ban handed out to Leigh players this season is 3.6 matches! In SL they are terrified of banning 'big names' (Brough a recent example, just 2 games for deliberately elbowing Tomkins in the face on the floor) whilst for certain teams they hand out 3 and 4 match bans like sweets!