Gate receipts are split during the playoffs as they're classed as an RFL event as opposed to a home game for whichever club, so I would much prefer to play a side with no vocal backing than one backed by a big following.

Problem is - Catalans are used to it.

Struggling to see how it's a Lancashire bias given the constant bans we've had at Saints in addition to some of the nonsensical things they have tried to ban our plaers for (like Matty Lees being stood on a rugby pitch).

This ban is a really poor one IMO and should be appealed but a lot of the other Leeds bans have been from poor discipline, same as us. It won't surprise you to hear that the stream of bans in our direction has been cast by some Saints fans as a conspiracy to stop Saints winning it again, whilst you have your own conspiracy that the RFL are desperate to see us in the final! The truth is that neither is true, both sides have players who have struggled with discipline, but there are also some dreadful decisions coming out of the MRP - and this is one of them IMO.

It's a penalty for sure but never a ban.

Agree. It's shambolic for all.

At least the IMG survey had some references to the disciplinary process in it so hopefully they do recognise it as an issue with the fans. Of course whether the powers that be listen or do anything about it is another matter.

Well the appeal is going in, I hope sense prevails as that is not a precedent the game wants to be setting for what's worthy of a ban.

I agree mate.
I'm not sure there's a bias, whether it's county or clubs.
But the problem is the inconsistency of decisions.
We have had players get flattened, off the ball, i.e. Kasiano and Whare against Cats. Nothing. No case to answer.
And then we get a ban for this. If that's a ban, there will be 10 players banned from every game played.
It's ludicrous inconsistency.
I'm sure you've had the same.
And with the Tomkins incident not copping anything either, I'm convinced there is a desire within the RFL to try to help Catalans win the comp.
Remember how overboard the game went when they won the CC.
They want more of that publicity.
Cats definitely get away with more than any other team.

I don't think their is bias, it's just the inconsistencies that turn it in a joke

if there was no bias the bans would be equally distributed, surely?
werent we on 30% more bans than the next team when some journo did an analysis?

Probably, but you have to take account that our red /yellow card were much higher than other teams as well. We had a discipline problem that led to bans.

tell yourself what you want, but Martin didnt get a yellow and the match officials/MRP are independant of each other, so not sure how thats relevant?

edit: Catalans are level on us for red cards and only 3 behind in yellow (would be as bad as our record, if not worse, had they mircaulously been let off in our game) yet nowhere near us in bans - so our reputation counts against us, but theirs doesnt against them? seems like bias to me

I think it's easy to get 'incompetence' and 'bias' mixed up sometimes

Whatever we might think about this one-off incident, the RFL clearly have a huge problem with this year's disciplinary process. If they want to keep it, at the least they need to find a way to explain it to fans and the sport's media in a way we can understand, as well as taking greater steps to show fans that the process is genuinely independent (thinking about the histories and allegiances of ex-players on the panel), consistent, equitable and transparent - all things that look massively questionable at present.

I think we can all agree with many of the bans Leeds players have received this season, including those for Bentley and Tetevano, and even Newman's tantrum. It's the small 1-2 game bans that few people comment on during the game (including the match officials, apparently) that need looking at. Perhaps these smaller infringements can be dealt with in a different way?

On bias, while it [iseems [/ithat Leeds are disproportionately targeted in the heat of the moment, I doubt there is any statistically significant bias , even if we have had more bans than most other teams (?).

That said, one thing I'm not sure about is whether Catalans get special preferential treatment when playing at home - Brian Mac made this point a long time ago, and the treatment of Catalans players by match officials in recent years (on and off the field) has tended to confirm this sense (IMO). Remember the play-off game when McIlorum blatantly targeted Leeds players illegally, with no on-field action helping Catalans win the game? McIllorum went on to receive a lengthy ban, allowing Catalans to progress and ultimately benefiting their next round opponents (Saints).

It happened to Saints this year - we lost by two points and two Catalans players picked up bans totalling EIGHT MATCHES afterwards for two bad incidents. Napa only got a yellow then got a five match ban (!) and Mcilorum was just a penalty then three matches.

Both were blatant but the Napa decision in particular was ridiculous.

The whole process is shrouded in mystery which eventually leads to fans drawing their own flawed conclusions. I wonder whether they might do better to focus on offenses that incurred yellow or red cards during the course of games, rather than scouring hours of video footage to "find" foul play. You could also give individual clubs the right to site players who they believe committed offences which they endangered their players. Might lead to an initial bun fight, but it would make both clubs and players accountable to themselves and each other, rather than the recipients of random justice.