No Leigh fan are questioning the bans it's when you get another player with a 1 match ban for foul and abusive language to an official but dawson 5 you can understand fans scratching their heads.What about Tommy leuluai getting no matches for the cannon ball tackle on Westwood never mind bussey from Toronto for the cheap shot on the young lad at swinton..fans are likely to say is it one rule for one and different rules for other teams

Presumably the difference between the 1 game and 5 game ban is that one was for foul and abusive language and the other for questioning the ref's integrity, which I think many would suggest is a whole different ballpark.

For all that I compared some earlier incidents to the Leigh ones, every incident is different. I will agree that Bussey on the Swinton lad was a very surprising decision, for me it was a cheap shot not an attempt at "wrapping", but you are always going to get differences of opinion. Plenty of Fev fans, for instance, are up in arms that the late shot/shoulder charge by a Leigh player on Martyn Ridyard which saw him forced from the field immediately and set for what may be a lengthy spell on the sidelines was worthy of a ban, but I don't think the incident was even discussed at the disciplinary....I'm sure some Fax fans saw the Hock challenge on Will Sharp at the Summer Bash differently to how the disciplinary saw it as another example.

Let's face it, the one thing that seems to unite us on these incidents is that the disciplinary committee is biased against our own team. There is a massive amount of "whataboutism" from fans of most clubs when one of their players are banned.

I think the bans are about right for the Leigh lads but it does seem some get away with murder compared to other teams,another example was gaz hock against hull..yes he through a punch and got 1 game ban but Griffin through 2 and not games same as Dixon against Warrington through his head and a punch no ban

Those are easy to explain - both were found guilty of Grade A punching, which carries a ban of 0-1 games. The RFL rules clearly indicated that Hock got the higher end of that grading (ie 1 game ban) because of having a smiliar offence at Grade C or above in the last 24 months, whereas Griffin didn't and didn't have 2 or more offences during the last 24 months, so got the lower end of the grading ie 0 games. Dixon also was found guilty of Grade A punching but like Griffin had no similar offence at Grade C or above & no two offences during the last 24 months, so again got 0 games.

I see that QLT and Maher are in the Cas squad for their visit to Warrington. Having said that, Maher was down as a non-playing squad member in Cas's last Friday's match even though he was also named (and played) in Fax's squad at Batley. Can they do that?

Cas have also recalled Mitch Clark so Fev's potential banana skin at Dewsbury looks a bit more slippery.

I've no complaint about the Leigh bans, PH - and they could have even got off lightly, looking at the maximum tariff for the offences. Unfortunately, there does seem to be inconsistency in the punishment process. Lussick was yellow carded in the Warrington game, for "foul and abusive language to a match official." Verdict - sin binning sufficient punishment. I know Dawson used 'foul and abusive language and - importantly - accused Kendall of 'cheating'. However, I would be interested to know the different gradings of 'foul and abusive language'!

One of the bad elements creeping into our game, is the verbal abuse of match officials, (e.g. Dawson v Leeds, and McCrone v Warrington) and it has to be stamped out. I just hope that Dawson's is not an isolated punishment.

As an aside, Ben Reynolds received a letter of caution from the Leeds game, for pointing a finger at a touch judge. There's just no hiding place when the Sky cameras are around!

From a Fax perspective the one that comes to mind from last years 8’s was Greg Bird on Ben Heaton who was lifted almost vertical and driven into the pitch head first with only his arm giving any sort of protection.
Bird got 2 games (I thought but was actually 4) reduced to 3 on appeal.

It was actually 4 matches reduced to 3 (which allowed him to play in the MPG), but it was a real bad one...

Quote: Alan "I've no complaint about the Leigh bans, PH - and they could have even got off lightly, looking at the maximum tariff for the offences. Unfortunately, there does seem to be inconsistency in the punishment process. Lussick was yellow carded in the Warrington game, for "foul and abusive language to a match official." Verdict - sin binning sufficient punishment. I know Dawson used 'foul and abusive language and - importantly - accused Kendall of 'cheating'. However, I would be interested to know the different gradings of 'foul and abusive language'! The fact that Lussick only received a Grade A citing suggests that it must have been at the minor end of the scale of offensive/obscene language and more importantly not targetted at the ref. The scales are A-C foul or abusive language B-D foul or abusive language targetted towards a match official B-F questioning the integrity of a match official To be honest I'm not quite sure how you would question the integrity of a match official and still only receive a Grade B citing, but those are the scales anyway. I guess they reflect the severity of the incident, probably starting at a "FFS" type comment for a Grade A to "you cheating b..." towards the upper end of the scale. www.rugby-league.com/operational ... 018/#p=378

Quote: Alan "I've no complaint about the Leigh bans, PH - and they could have even got off lightly, looking at the maximum tariff for the offences. Unfortunately, there does seem to be inconsistency in the punishment process. Lussick was yellow carded in the Warrington game, for "foul and abusive language to a match official." Verdict - sin binning sufficient punishment. I know Dawson used 'foul and abusive language and - importantly - accused Kendall of 'cheating'. However, I would be interested to know the different gradings of 'foul and abusive language'! The fact that Lussick only received a Grade A citing suggests that it must have been at the minor end of the scale of offensive/obscene language and more importantly not targetted at the ref. The scales are A-C foul or abusive language B-D foul or abusive language targetted towards a match official B-F questioning the integrity of a match official To be honest I'm not quite sure how you would question the integrity of a match official and still only receive a Grade B citing, but those are the scales anyway. I guess they reflect the severity of the incident, probably starting at a "FFS" type comment for a Grade A to "you cheating b..." towards the upper end of the scale. www.rugby-league.com/operational ... 018/#p=378

Players abusing or even constantly challenging match officials.

The only way that has to go is for it to be stamped out, anything less and it would soon get out of hand imho.

To be consistent with the bans for the dangerous lift, throw type it will be interesting to see if Leigh / Peter Mata’utia appeal and if it gets reduced by 1 game as per Greg Bird.

You seem to be advocating the same one-size-fits-all penalty for each category of offence, but that surely makes little sense? There are varying degrees of severity for each offence. for instance, Steve Tyrer received a 1-game ban for his trip at the Summer Bash, but we have all seen trips that were much worse than that - would you be happy if the RFL brought in a single punishment for all types of trips, at say 4 games, and Tyrer had to sit out the next month for that?


On their website the RFL generally go into great detail why each incident is graded as it is. Yet the forums are filled with people doing these "what about..." posts in an attempt to prove some sort of inconsistency.

Doing the disciplinary must be a hard job, a bit like refereeing, and I'm sure they get things wrong sometimes (as I mentioned earlier in this thread I disagreed with the Bussey verdict), but imo they usually do a reasonable job of applying justice according to their rules.

I agree with the comments about stamping out the constant challenging of officials, though. Part of the problem is that there are one or two notably chippy captains around who seem to push their perceived entitlement to question the referee - McCrone and Paul Sykes perhaps two examples of this who I have seen binned for overdoing it.

No appeals, 'faxcar'. Mata'utia pleaded guilty, and rightly so. I suppose you could say his ban for the tackle was technically five matches, as he missed 72 minutes of the leeds game.

Pity that - we would have hammered them with 13 men!!

Regarding the one size fits all, no I am not advocating that at all and actually only reffered to one category and two offences within that catergory.

Regarding the perception, as you say on “many forums” that certain clubs get more lenient punishments depending on who you are.

It would be hard to see a more severe dangerous tackle than the one done by GB including the one by PM.

GB wasn’t sent off where PM was and the ref was Chris Kendal in both games, fact, that is real proof of real inconsistency no “ what about it.”

Facts after the game.

GB had his sentence reduced.
Why because it wasn’t a dangerous tackle.
It could’t have easily caused serious carreer ending injury.
It couldn’t have caused a broken neck.
By reducing the sentence it better fit the severity.
By reducing the sentence it would act as a greater deterrent for him and others.
It was his first offence.

Again facts are, no,no,no,no,no and no.

Or was it because Catalans were going to be involved in one of, or even the most important game in their history that allowed him to play in.

The above is the only real factual benefit to come out of it all, only they benefitted.

Inconsistent.
I don’t know, decide for yourselves, simply showing why some people see it all as being so.