The more we can take away from a referee's personal judgement the better. Consistency, in any aspect of the game, is all the players (and supporters) deserve. If the players (and coaches) knew that thowing a punch would result in a spell in the sin-bin, then they could have no real complaints if/when one was thrown.
I'm not sure how you can class the current decisions being made as consistent. Recent examples:
Justin Poore throws one punch, it happens to be damn accurate and Liam Farrell hits the deck. Justin gets a red card (not sure if he got a ban too).
Danny McGuire throws two uppercuts, but the punches are inaccurate. He stays on the field, no card or a ban (or even penalised iirc).
Joe Wardle throws 5 (albeit soft) punches, all of them connect and he is given a red card, a two match ban and his team are penalised.

In all of these cases the intent is exactly the same, each bloke was trying to punch someone else. Why not just sin bin the guy in each case? Repeat offenders can then be subject to review from the disciplinary panel.

I also disagree that the game would descend into brawls every week. Coaches would soon realise that being down to 12 men for 10 minutes can - and often does - cost teams matches, and players would be given the hard word. These guys are professionals after all, I would be willing to give them an opportunity to act accordingly and I don't think they would exploit the rules.

Imagine the scenario. The Bulls are in the GF. Kearney is ripping the Rhinos apart. Bailey flattens him with a beauty, Kearney is stretchered off. 10 minutes Bailey. L'Estrange takes over the mantle, McGuire lays him out with a cracker. L'Estrange carried off. Danny boy 10 minutes. Setting rigid rules allows no margin for interpretation. Every incident & game is different. Players know what the rules are, if they choose to transgress they have to accept the consequences.

Probably the knees in to the head in the tackle that Cudjoe was warned about.

And yet Danny Mcguire throws two uppercuts without any punishment.
As for the stretchered off scenario, you know I'm only referring to fist fights here, right? Where two players square up.
Anything else - stiff arms, late hits off the ball, attacks to the back of the head - entirely different.

Can't believe you lot think he should have got a ban for them 'punches'. Small club mentality.

I am talking fist fights, a punch similar to Poores or Willie Mason's is sufficient to take a player out of the game or even break a jaw.
If you want consistency tell me what the penalty for each of the 'Anything else' list is? Surely every single incident must have have the same result & judgement?
McGuire no doubt knows he transgressed, I doubt he contends that. If the game ever got to the stage where that deserved more than a penalty then I would choose a new sport. It was reviewed, there was nothing in it, accept it.

The Poore and Mason incidents highlight my point exactly - one was a straight red, the other got nothing iirc, not even a penalty.

I'm discussing consistency in the ruling re fighting, so not sure why the other transgressions are relevant, unless you want to completely re-write the rulebook, but I'm fairly certain there is a consistent rule for attacks to the back of the head - a red card (and quite rightly). Probably off the ball late hits too - if they are seen.

I'm only using the McGuire incident because it is the most recent, but my point regarding that match in particular is the inconsistency. Danny wasn't even penalised, Joe gets a red and a 2 match ban. I don't see how the two incidents differ to such a degree, when both could quite easily have been dealt with by sin-binning the guilty party.

Because one was a response from a player on the floor who had been fouled, who whilst in a group had a little scuffle, the other was a player who lost his cool, whilst stood up and walking away from the play decided to only swing once, but to swing again and again and again at the head of a player who wasnt swinging back.

It really isnt difficult to appreciate that whilst both can be adequately described as 'punching' not all instances of 'punching' are the same. The same as not all high tackles are the same.

I've got a car. It's a million year old Skoda worth £5. You have a car. It's a Lamborghini worth £180,000.

But they are both "cars", aren't they, so that means they're just exactly the same thing.

Like punches.