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.

Good post.

Conspiracy theory alert! At the time nobody knew if Catalans were even going to be involved in the million pound game. Presumably you were one of the people who said the London Broncos would never be allowed to be relegated from SL either?
I've read the full, detailed report on the appeal to me, which explains the panel's thinking. I reckon it could have gone either way, it was a bad tackle and deserved a ban, 3 to 4 games looks about right to me. For me the Mata'utia incident was marginally worse because he lifted the ball carrier with both hands from behind in a manoeuvre that wasn't really any kind of normal tackling manoeuvre, but I could see how you might argue it either way. But this is a judgment call, not an example of "inconsistency".

Agree re judgement call.Watching the Leigh game as a neutral i was disappointed it was more than a sinbin as all he appeared to be trying to do was stop an offload.It just became dangerous whereas Bird knew what he was doing.Also can't understand the mentality of calling the ref a cheat when the game was long gone anyway.

Watching the Origin last night was first time i thought the 2 ref idea wasn't gimmiky.No-one dropping ball on purpose or poking ball out on ref's blindside was a pleasure to watch.

The first thing I advise is.
Stop “presuming” what other people did or think.
I have never commented on what would or wouldn’t happen to London.
However since you raised it the RFL were clearly inconsistent regarding the rules where London were concerned with one set of rules for them and one set of rules for everyone else.
No conspiracy, no presumption, it was all done out in the open for years, fact.

Rather than doing anything to make people think the RFL are not capable of manouvering things when it suits them, London does the exact opposite and hardly strengthens your argument or Featherstones chances.

Back from presumptions.

I completely disagree on your assessment that the PM tackle was marginally worse because of where the lifting started from, which has nothing to do with the outcome.
Risk assessments = likelihood x severity or harm, I used to write them for years in a heavy construction industry.

In the case in question the severity or amount of harm is the important factor.
Also where the person being lifted finishes before being dropped will affect the above outcome.
The more vertical and the less support increases the likelihood and greater amount of potential harm, BH clearly looks worse.

As stated Kendal sent off PM and not GB, judgement call or not it has to be consistent and that was not the case.

Obviously a bad call from Dawson. His frustration clearly came from being obviously impeded by the guy playing the ball, and Kendal refusing his TJ's advice to have a look at it for obstruction. No excusing Dawson, but ironically, had the ref chosen to involve the VR, like he did for ALL Leigh's tries, then Dawson wouldn't have said anything.

Still, he did, and got his just desserts!