This week Brendan Fevola is cited for rough play for his attack on Brett Kirk and will miss just one match. Some might think it lunacy to suggest Pickett's attack on the player was six times more dangerous than the actions of Fevola.

There are reasons for the discrepancy. Schwab deemed Pickett's action intentional, Fevola's negligent. Under 2006 definitions, an intentional act is described as requiring deliberate desire to commit a reportable offence. The person must purposefully set out to achieve that result.

Watch the replay of Fevola's run at Kirk and it is hard not to accept that some time before contact that Fevola was determined to act in the manner that he did. Intentionally. Certainly, his action fits oddly under the definition of negligent, which says such an act requires that a person must take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a reportable offence.

Schwab's panel found him guilty of a reportable offence yet there is precious little evidence available to suggest Fevola took reasonable care to avoid his contact with Kirk.

He's good at his job, being a pontificating prat.

Wojee, that's a typo, it's spelled T-W-A-T

But twats are useful.

Obviously the powers that be at MC Labour Park don't hold pat fat prick in the same dim light as most of us here at TC do as I am not impressed by his invitation. Just thought it was interesting that he was there and also that Graham arranged such a meeting

Obviously the powers that be at MC Labour Park don't hold pat fat prick in the same dim light as most of us here at TC do as I am not impressed by his invitation. Just thought it was interesting that he was there and also that Graham arranged such a meeting

Much better to make it harder for him to find the kind of fuel he wants to fan his fires of hatred.