Players can get massive bans for making contact with the ref. Wasn't one player a couple of seasons back given a five match ban for contact with the ref? I don't think that particular offence has anything to do with seriousness in a rugby sense. It is about maintaining authority so really contact with the ref can't be compared to any other offence.

I don't remember seeing the tackle that is being discussed but if the player didn't land on his neck then chances are a ban won't be forthcoming as the player wouldn't have been put in a dangerous position. Obviously it was a risky tackle as a caution wouldn't have been given, especially this season when there have been a fair few bans thrown around the place. But I would much rather have this stricter regime where tackles involving the head and neck are concerned than the weak and highly dangerous version we had up to a couple of seasons ago.

And nobody is mentioning Wilkin's special attention to Hock? Anyway, moving away from the typical vitriolic anti Wigan nonsense, why not go an look at Warrington for a team that get away with it? Morley seems to make one of two high tackles every game I see but do I see him banned that often?

The disciplinary is hugely inconsistant, how many players have thrown a ball into the crowd in recent weeks? How many have been warned by the RFL. The same could be said for spear and high tackles, time and time again it's the same inconsistant news. Cunningham's jab for a broken jaw, what did he get?

does nobody think allowances was made for it being a derby? or is that giving the rfl to much credit. was anything seriously that dirty in the game?

I certainly think they made allowances for the derby when reviewing the Saints and Warrington game. Wellens' ban was utterly ridiculous, why it was even cited is beyond me. A nothing incident if there ever was one. Briers trying to steal a penalty, Wellens doing very little and Laffranchi gets a player to 91 degrees and dumps him on his back and is also cited. Wigan had spent a lot of time crying about their enormous injury crisis and I'm sure the RFL took the derby into account then.

Oh that's why we won, cause the RFL wanted to 'level the playing field', it all makes sense now

Hock was given a lengthy ban a few seasons ago for grabbing the ref by his elbow (the ref had his back to him) to try and turn him towards him whilst trying to make a point.

I think the reason MM wasn't banned was because it was the other players momentum in the tackle that continued the leg lift and landing. MM started the tackle but when the players legs were being lifted higher, MM's feet were both off the ground - there's no way he could have continued to lift the player up as he would have defied the laws of physics.

He didn't lift the player above horizontal so there's no way he can be judged responsible for the tackle.

And yet, other players have done the same and got, wait for it, nothing! I'm pretty sure that Briers and Sinfield have both done this.

Then he should be banned for defying the laws of physics, a dangerous tackle and wearing a Wigan shirt.

i m sure in days gone by you could be banned for life for laying a finger on the ref, never mind pushing him.
isnt bailey serving a 3 game ban for pushing a ref??

I really don't know why we don't use the disciplinary system from the NRL.

What about placing your finger on another players posterior as Wilkin did to Hock. Amazes me it got mentioned earlier and all ignored it. What ever Hock or any Wigan player did was nothing compared to that. If Hock deserved a ban for throwing the ball into the crowd then Wilkins deserves double. Was an obvious attempt to get a reaction out of him which was missed by ref and all others. When Hock gets to visit the committee re throwing the ball into the crowd i do hope he points out what Wilkin did. But from waht i gather its nothing new for a Saints player to do. Pryce for 1.

We generally do ignore stuff that Wiganers make up.

And besides, Wilkin probably just mistook it for Hock's face.

That was not made up but if you want to ignore it that's up to you.

I know Hock is not the best looking bloke in the World but he is not that ugly. Wait until Wilkin meets Phil Neville he is really going to be confused.

Maybe it was ignored because it has little to do with the topic "More inconsistency from the disciplinary committee" as opposed to incidents missed by the referee?