Hull KR chairman having a pretty big issue with the match review panel;

rlhttp://www.totalrl.com/web/hull-kr-chairman-slams-rfls-match-review-panel/rl

Well he doesn't 'pull any punches', does he?

He has a very fair point. In particular this season, the Bowen and Soliola incidents were worthy of straight red cards yet both received no punishment from the review board.

He's not wrong

He is spot on. I note "The RFL" have issued a counter statement but not going to read it. Backslapping, self effacing bunch of cronies (IMO). www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/about_t ... _directors Read Paragraph Two. Strongly suspect the players union and most chairmen want massive changes. Lard Arse of Halifax only became CEO by waiting for the better man to leave (IMO) No accumen, no charisma, no idea

He is spot on. I note "The RFL" have issued a counter statement but not going to read it. Backslapping, self effacing bunch of cronies (IMO). www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/about_t ... _directors Read Paragraph Two. Strongly suspect the players union and most chairmen want massive changes. Lard Arse of Halifax only became CEO by waiting for the better man to leave (IMO) No accumen, no charisma, no idea

rlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29818/rfl-statement-disciplinary-processrl

Makes for boring reading, with a hint of an apology in the last paragraph

The bloke is spot on, regarding the match review panel, however I expect a charge sheet to be in the post to him as I type for bringing the game into disrepute!

I disagree that he is spot on. I agree that there can appear to be inconsistencies and if those affect his club then I can understand him being fscked off but there are a number of issues here.

First the very fact that we HAVE a MRP is good, it means there is a system to look at things which might otherwise be let go.

Second the fact that the MRP looks at and deals with thousands of incidents in a season and in the overwhelming majority, there isn't a fuss made, and so they must be doing, in the main, a passably decent job.

Like VR decisions, all you can do is appoint people to do the review job, and hope and trust that they are good enough to do it properly, but accepting that occasionally errors are certain to be made. That is not a case for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And the difficulty of ANY individual disciplinary decision is more than amply demonstrated - at least, to anyone with a brain - by the hugely disparate views that ANY given offence will garner on this forum. That proves that if the members on here took turns to sit on the panel, there would clearly be no more "consistency" then than there is now, as to prove "inconsistency" you have to first of all agree on differing cases "being identical" and as so many threads indisputably show, unanimity on any given case is just pie in the sky, it will never exist.

Missing vital evidence on several occasions when viewing a match DVD is not inconsistency it's incompetence

Maybe the job could be handed over, lock stock and barrel, to Wakefield fans? They are the only ones who know about level playing fields and fairness.

Apparently.

It could be, but we haven't heard the side of those alleged to have been incompetent though.

That said, as the evidence was clearly there for those who wished to find it, they could only tell us the reason [iwhy[/i they missed it and I'm not sure that would be sufficient to escape the charge..

Was it? Anyway, as I say I've only heard one side of the story. This includes Hudgell saying“A leading international player this week avoided censure for repeated punching in the tackle, shown live on Sky Sports. Only a change in personnel, I believe, is capable of effecting the right change, and I call on the executive of the RFL to do that before a player suffers serious injury as a result of their inaction.'"

Look I know you are on your usual 'I'm right' ego trip but you are aware Neil never actually said this right?

It's pretty clear he means that if players are judged consistently then a player may actually think 'I had better not do this' as he will know for SURE what he is going to get instead of him giving it a go and rolling the dice and possibly getting something meaningful depending how nice the board's breakfast was that morning or who he plays for. Well it's obvious to anyone who isn't self absorbed.

Whoah there tiger, why so bloody rude?

Self absorbed? What the fsck is that supposed to mean?

I would suggest that whatever failings the match review panel may have, the person who is truly self absorbed would be someone who suggests that they would act perversely for flippant reasons, or partiality or bias.

I would also suggest that if a player really does think about the possibility of getting away with it before deciding to drop a fellow player on his head then the order in which he might worry would be 1 will the ref see it 2 will the touchiest and any VR see it 3 will it be on video.

Anyone who suggests - as you appear to- that he may act differently on the basis that he has a perception that an unknown match review panel official might miss it on a video would be making a suggestion that is just silly.