Did it even go on report? I thought all 5 officials missed it completely?

Flip side is we're the team that's going to benefit from fouls against other teams for next 3 matches, due to bans for Jordan James, Wardle and Patterson. Did child put it on report at time or did match review panel pull him in?. If latter then difficult to see how they could do it differently. If former maybe an argument for an automatic yellow if there's enough doubt to warrant putting incident on report?.

He definitely called the captains together, though I didn't actually see the crossed arms - my impression was that it was on report.

To be fair, if the RFL are going to restrict match officials to a mere 5, you can't expect them to see violent assaults that happen on the pitch in front of them.

He did put it on report in the end but only after some discussion took place on the field between the ref and captains.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying things here, but at the time Kaufusi and his skipper both felt he hadn't done anything wrong at all (no Penalty even IIRC). So how can he now make an early guilty plea and get a reduction in his ban? Presumably he had a moment of clarity between last Friday and Monday and realised he'd actually done a dangerous tackle...

Probably because a reckless strike is not assault. Call me picky.

The alternative when a player is flat out is to send an opposition player off just in case. Personally I am happy for the panel to review it in the cold light of day. Whether it goes on report or not seems fairly pointless to me.

The sooner we get a video ref at each match, the better. It doesn't even need to be a big screen where the spectators can see - just the option to be able to refer incidents up to another official who can view footage on the fly would be a massive improvement.
Something I think FC actually touched upon in his post match comments this week.

But the only reason the VR system works as well as it does (and it must be said that the decision making even with Sky's massive resources is still a long way from perfect) is because they have a number of cameras and highly skilled cameramen capturing incidents in close-up from every angle.

If all a VR had was a camcorder view from the back of the pop terrace, I don't see it being realistically of much help.

Yeah there would need to be more cameras certainly, and I think the cost has been the major sticking point whenever it has been mentioned before.
A video ref has been at every NRL match for years now, but then every match over there is televised - with two broadcasters bidding for the coverage. If only we could say the same over here.

Thing is though TT, we lost a player for the rest of the match, and yes, he was replaced but it left us an interchange player down and disadvantaged due to foul play. Having a player sent off would have disadvantaged the Broncos a tad more, but, ATEOTD it was [itheir[/i player who made the "reckless strike".

Which is the same with every incident that is referred where a player is not sent off. Whether the fact that the player should have been sent off & the timing of the incident are taking into consideration I don't know.

Well, it's not [ientirely[/i the same for every incident, as the instances when the man on the receiving end doesn't play any further part in the game are thankfully relatively rare.

The major factor against sending off in cases where none of the officials see it[?] is the obvious one, that just because someone is injured doesn't automatically mean someone is guilty of an offence and sometimes it is just bad luck. In this instance though I'm truly baffled how none of the officials could give an account to the ref - I saw it from 60 yards away in the stands. Kaufusi ran in, flat out, and launched himself, head and arms first, at Donaldson, in truth I don't know which bit of Kaufusi caught Donno on the chin, but he was out cold for over 10 seconds or more which suggests one of the more solid bits.

I don't think for a second it was deliberate though and "reckless" sums it up well for me.

With respect, m'lud, I beg leave to draw your lordship's attention to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

* An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

* A battery is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another.

Thus indeed in the case of a reckless strike an offence of common assault is committed.

But as any trainee wannabe legal types would know that in contact sport there is an element of consent to physical contact & that there has to be a mental element as well as a physical element for a crime of assault to have been committed. I think.