I think calling it a joke is extremely unfair. As long as all teams know what the score is viz how offences are dealt with in advance it is a level playing field. Ref's can't win, they bin/red card players & get lambasted on here for trying to hog the limelight, they take the safer route & get the same. Personally I am happy with the current arrangement as long as ref's still have the authority to red if suitable. I am also comfortable if players are binned, especially if it means aggression stays in the game if it is deemed sufficient punishment.

One of the problems with judging Elima's tackle on Gaskell is that the Saints' player had two attempts at picking it up and he he wasn't [ithat[/i late after the second attempt. The fact that Silverwood hadn't blown is important in that [iif[/i Gaskell had picked the ball up at that second attempt he [icould[/i have played on (playing to the whistle) so the tackle was, or at least, would have been if he'd caught the ball, a legitimate one. It may well have been over physical (or however the ref described it) but even Silverwood didn't actually say it was late.

OK - in many ways "joke" is a little unfair, and they are being consitent in not binning anyone....

There are many other instances where the crime doesn't seem to match the punishment given though.

What needs to happen to see a red/yellow these days for overly agressive/dangerous play? Foster received a yellow for mucking around at play of the ball and that warranted 10 mins according to Silverwood, but Elima (at the time) only gave away a penalty for something far more dangerous.

this is pretty much what i was trying to say.

I thought Silverwood's first words were "late tackle" and he then went on to speak about not running in aggressively?

In which case I bow to your superior hearing, but I didn't hear him say that.

I was disappointed in Silverwood in that regard. I thought he called the penalty spot on but then lost a bit of authority by not seeming to clearly explain why he blew in the first place.

They removed the option of yellow for dangerous play a few years ago, reserving just for technical offences IIRC. It might have changed back but I am struggling to remember a recent instance.

Didn't foster see yellow for saints persistent offending?. Foster was just unlucky to be first player penalised after silverwood warned them.

If that was the case it was still pretty minor considering Elima's hit.

The offense is irrelevant if it was for persistent offending. Just unlucky it was the next offense.

Not quite the point I am making - What I mean is that persistent offending results in penalty after penalty. The offending team still suffer, and, when considering Elima's hit, surely that would have been deemed worse and worthy of a yellow?

Persistent offending doesn't bother me too much if the ref keeps pinging the offending team for an offence.