Anyone seen his hit on the Salford player? Was a bad one for mine. Should be looking at a minimum of 4 games.

Was fine, Frenchie on Frenchie, a bit of brotherly love.

Really poor challenge. 3 shockers this weekend, should all be looking at 2 games or more IMO.

He should be looking at double figures. It's a shocking challenge.

But it's been incorrectly graded and he'll end up with three games which doesn't send the right message out at all.

Disgraceful hit and clearly done on purpose to take Theo out of the game. The lad was out cold for 8 minutes and stopped breathing during that time causing him to fit. The medical team did a great job!! www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-leag ... um=twitter

Disgraceful hit and clearly done on purpose to take Theo out of the game. The lad was out cold for 8 minutes and stopped breathing during that time causing him to fit. The medical team did a great job!! www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-leag ... um=twitter

The 2 game minimum was more referring to Chase and Cross btw, Bousquet should be looking at a good while longer.

The grading guidelines are (IIRC) only guidelines, and the disciplinary does have the option of going above the recommended maximum I think, taking into account aggravating factors such as the nature and severity of the injury.

The recommended ban for the grade D is 3-5 games isn't it?

Correct.

It was a sickening attack, if that had been, say, Ryan Bailey on Matty Smith, this thread would be thirty pages long by now.

The problem is, Bousquet will probable receive a C – E grade. as they will probably class it as reckless, rather than intentional which can go up to 8 matches plus.

Long was absolutely livid about it on Twitter, saying it was worse than Newton's hit on him. Not sure that's true but it was a seriously bad hit and deserves probably 5+ games. Very nasty, just glad no permanent damage appears to have been done to the young lad.

On another note, could you imagine the furore if other players had been involved - perhaps Hock on Briers or Bailey on Sammut?

I don't think it's as bad as Newton/Long or Cassidy/Morley but it's not worth being graded at D. It should have been ungraded and left to the judiciary to decide.