Following on from McGuire's one match ban which is likely to be served by him missing the Boxing Day friendly, we are now likely to see Westwood serving his possible 2-match ban by sitting out the England friendly vs Italy & England's opening World cup match.
In neither instance does it seem to me that justice has been meted out.
Neither club side for whom the miscreant was playing has been penalised in a meaningful manner.
I'm sure that this has been debated before but should the penalty not be imposed by making the guilty players miss his club's first team cup, league or play-off matches?

It should count in the competition where the suspension was incurred, otherwise it is a joke.

But even better, and here is a novel idea, why not punish it in the game where the offence took place. It does require referees to have a bit of backbone. Radical I know, but it might just catch on.

Being able to serve a ban in friendlies is simply farcical.

I seem to remember a Hull player managed to serve a two match ban during the Floodlit 9's.

It's a farce. More incidents need to be dealt with on field, report is a safety net. The sin bin should be utilised alot more for this type of foul play. As it is even the sin bin seems rare and only seems to be used when theres been too much lying on. Utilising the sinbin you penalise the defender and the team there and then and you don't destroy the game.

But failing all that, at least when you're going through the disciplinary procedure, apply some common f*cking sense.

Bans for friendlies, being utilised in a seperate competition to where the incident occured.....what clueless monkey dreamt this up? Who's in charge of this?

"On report" is a meaningless sop to baying fans which gives the referee a way of making no decision while appearing to do something. Any incident can be reviewed by the judiciary, so the whole thing is a sham. This is not news.

Serving bans in friendlies is silly. Competitive internationals should count though. Losing out on a cap, and more if your replacement does well, is punishment for the individual.

I can recall Barrie McDermott receiving a five game ban for a brawl in a pre season friendly against York in 1998
<i think>

Shame he ran out of friendly games to clear his ban

It just seems like the whole system wants to get away with doing as little as possible, while appearing to the public to be doing something.

They are pussies.

Look at the fact they've charged him with a grade b offence. Of which the definitions for punching are :

- reaction to opponent/ lashing out
- self defence
- one on one, minor

Westwoods was none of those. Not self defence, no reaction as green did nothing and you could hardly call it minor when green needed oxygen to bring him round and had it not been a grand final it would probbaly have taken him out of the game.

They're a bunch of spinless, gutless morons.

Westwoods could also fall under another category, i found this on the RFL websiteWhen tackling or attempting to tackle makes contact with head or neck of an opponent

[iA-B Careless - flat hand off balance
A-B Careless -ball carrier dips
A-B Careless - stepped and reaching
A-B Careless - initial contact with ball or chest
A-B Careless - second tackler in - wrapping tackle up
Reckless
B-C Reckless - tackler in control
B-C Reckless - tried to tackle but reckless about outcome
Intentional
D-F Intentional - clenched fist - intent to make contact with head[/i

How is westwood's not the bottom one, grade D-F? Is that too may games for the RFL to give him? afterall they wouldn't want him to miss too much world cup would they?

What's his record like this season?

[iYay! Let's charge him with a grade b, he can early guilty plea and get no games. We look like we've done something, but he won't miss any games...easy option WIN WIN![/i

Never got that, the tackler goes to make a legal tackle, the ball carrier dips into it at the last, catching his head, tackler is careless.

What I don't get is why we aren't using video technology in these instances. It was clear what had happened on the field and the video ref could have made the call. We use the video ref for foul play in the act of scoring, for drop out decisions and 40-20s why can't we use them for foul play? It wouldn't take long to look at the incident. Besides the clock was stopped due to the injury and it's very rare a rugby player stays down when not injured

Sort of got me thinking, if I was in charge of a major TV company wouldn't it benefit me if the match wasn't spoiled by a sending off and possible one sided match?

Sort of got me thinking, if I were a major sporting governing body in thrall to a major TV company wouldn't it be convenient if we were to allow an offending player to say on the pitch after a possible sending off offence so that we didn't endanger our product?

Sort of got me thinking, wouldn't it be better for all concerned if the TV matches could stay as competitive as possible for as long as possible and the authorities could be seen to be dealing out justice after the event?

Just thinking out loud . . . . .

Friendlies should never count in the Match bans; what a ridiculous rule!

Why should a player be allowed to partake in a red-card/ban offence and stay on the pitch, thus giving the offending team an advantage (Especially if the attack has meant a player goes off injured), for that team to then be allowed to lose nothing in the competition? If it were feasible in any way, I'd argue the ban should be served in the next game against the team they wronged, though I recognise that wouldn't be easy to organise.

Of course, referee's could use the video referee and their backbone to award red cards when needed, but we all know that won't happen any time soon.

I've totally bought into that conspiracy theory.

Westwood "I didn't know that I had punched him".

Yep that sounds like a good enough excuse.