An entry in the MRP database is not indication of anything if no charge comes of it. The MRP log anything they look at - i.e. we looked at this in this game, studied it a bit and actually there was nothing in it. It doesn't even suggest it should be a penalty - it's just something which has been looked at.

Lots of entries there and no referrals is evidence of nothing and certainly is nothing to do with "citing" which implies someone has found fault/deemed it worthy of punishment.

Is it the opposite to exciting?

Ok, so they have studied twelve potential trips, a bit, by Myler, in the last three seasons. Four times he has been found 'guilty', and the rest there was nothing in it. I wonder if something may need to be amended in his 'tackling' technique?

In the last instance of Myler tripping someone: DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF : Player extends foot and arm at the same time. Simultaneous contact on opponent: DECISION:No charge. INCIDENT:Trip in the 17th minute (Quinlan).
Therefore Sam Tomkins shouldn't have a problem.

No, but if he ever uses his knees in a tackle he may have a problem....and a winners medal.

Maybe
LUKE THOMPSON - ST HELENS V WARRINGTON
DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF :
Rule – 15.1(a) Strikes – Raises knees in tackle MRP Caution
DECISION:
Caution
INCIDENT:
Knees in the 56th minute

It's always really good to compare different scenario in an attempt to paint your team as hard done to.

Simultaneous contact ? , funny I always thought you had to have hold of the player before using your foot , simultaneous isn't before

I also put a bet on for Saints to win this year so it won't be the 1st time or last....but you might want to change your quote it was a charge for the knee... we are not all perfect.
WIGAN V WARRINGTON - SUPER LEAGUE
DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF :
Player lunges towards opponent with arms and one leg outstretched. Player makes initial contact with both hands. Player has leg outstretched in front of opponent. Contact made between leg of player and leg of opponent however player has not used tripping motion and appears to be using throwing motion to complete tackle.

DECISION:
No charge

INCIDENT:
Tripping in the 17th minute (Godwin)

It's the blinkers, not the horse.
I know it's difficult to see through your cherry and white tinted glasses

I was simply using the previous disciplinary cases for examples and predicated the tackle on Clark incorrectly as I did with St Helens when they were mullering teams on a weekly basis, I thought they "have" to win it but they didn't. I got that one wrong and I'm sure many others did. However the "trip" seems to be an allowable tackle these days so perhaps they need to sort that rule out properly for next year.
In reference to the other thread in which I was defending "Sam Tomkins" for the knees after the 1st try for which I seem to have got correct because the panel were giving out bans for the weekend but not one for Williams (we agreed it definitely wasn't Tomkins) for which I wasn't blinkered. But I like the horse comment even though it was completely misplaced and inaccurate, trot on.