rlRFL to increase punishment for Wigan anticsrl

Good to see this finally happening and I just hope they continue to carry it out and not just throw a few heavy bans around in the first couple of weeks. Wigan will be gutted, emergency meeting tonight at the DW. Better take those 'snap the pole' posters down.

Long overdue this. My only worry is that they'll invent some new moves. The crocodile death roll for example.

Rugby league always does, it just won't necessarily be Wigan. Do you not remember jason hoopers, "I'm going for the ball not the kicker, honest" approach?

Good to have better protection for players though.

You appear to have a bit of a downer on Wigan, like they are the Devil Incarnate.

I suggest you chill out a little & look forward to watching a strong St’s team challenging for honours, not bagging one team for all the ills in the game.

You've only just noticed. It is his life's obsession to denounce Wigan and anything associated with the club as the creators of all things evil and the root cause of the worlds problems. Apart from that he's a fairly reasoned poster.

On topic i, like most posters i'm in favour of harsher punishments in general where appropriate. I'm not sure about the shoulder charge, as for the 'cannonball' all intentional dangerous tackles should be severely punished.

The problem isn' in the levels of punishment, they are generally fit for purpose, the problem is with the disciplinary panel which isn't, they have a distinct inability to recognise the crime depending on which team the player plays for.

The problem is those punishments usually end up benefiting another team a week or 2 later and not the team the offence was committed against.

The RFL decided not to take up any of the rule changes in the NRL. I agree that some are not worth considering but they are bringing in a rule that the third player in the tackle must tackle above the knee.
Increasing the punishments after the event will still mean that the perpetrator will serve less time as a ban than the victim spends in hospital!
Change the rule, penalise the tackle then and there. Lets cut out this dreadful tactic from our game.

I'd like to see a rule change in the way the punishment is handed out; I think it should be the choice of the team the offense was committed against. So for example if the Wigan player got banned for 3 games for a tackle against Warrington, then we can decide the following:

He serves his next three games as a ban.
He serves his next two games as a ban and the next time the two teams (wire and Wigan) meet.

The club can then take an approach on what benefits them better; if they think that him missing 3 games in a row if they have big teams coming up would benefit then they can choose that option.

Would be a bit wrong though if you let the team choose the games for all the players bans; would just end up banning him for big games, but the two option ban above would work quite well.

Opinions?

I've said for some time that the offending player should serve his ban against the team he fouled.
Westwood should have missed the next game v Wigan not the England friendly v Italy. Meli should have missed the next three games v HKR after smashing Craig Hall, not against the next three opponents whoever they may have been.

The standing leg (or 'Wigan') tackle does need to be more severely dealt with, but only *after* the offending player has been summarily dismissed from the field of play; it's the cop-out 'on report' that starts all the trouble and gives an advantage to other teams. I would have nothing against any subsequent ban including the next game vs the team against which the offence was committed, but a lot of the outrage would be snuffed out if ref's were empowered to grow a pair.

I have come to the conclusion that the decision has been made to not send players off because of the massive detriment that is, so that ‘technical’ fouls on the person like this, like the high tackle, like the chicken wing etc, are to be dealt with on-report which doesn’t ‘ruin the spectacle’ of that game, but does have a punishment to deter players. Violent conduct however is still a sending off.

I dont think its about 'growing a pair' i think it is more a policy decision to keep players on the field.

Im in two minds about that as a situation but im sure that is what we are dealing with.

You could well be right and I hadn't thought about it like that; if you are right however, it's a stupid policy and one that coaches and players will exploit ruthlessly.

The integrity of the 'spectacle' should not trump player welfare, in my humble opinion.

why has the article got a picture of a perfectly legal tackle attached to it?