I hope they both get banned but it's nothing to do with me being bitter mate.

They both deserve a ban and it would be an extraordinary display of weakness if the RFL don't see this through.

They have a record of bottling it prior to big matches and it's always been something that frustrates me. Regardless of the team involved I really hope they don't back down this time.

They do?

I assume you have evidence?

Yes they do. When I get a spare hour I'll compile a list of examples if you like.

Ironic that they class contact with the ref as bad as an attack to the head. I would not be surprised if Charnley got the full three match ban, to show the laughing stock that is running our sport. RL will be looked at as an amateur sport as long as it's run by amateurs.

It's daft that Charnley is on a lesser charge than Tautai.

Why the RFL are now ambivalent about the same type of tackles they were giving substantial bans out for early in the season is strange.

I'd also far rather have seen the referee take action on the pitch against both Tautai and Charnley.

Charnley could've been sin binned and that'd be an end to it.

Tautai could've been punished too. It was obviously an illegal tackle and it wasn't hidden. One of the 3 officials should've seen it.

Despite the few that defend it it's a farcical system.

I think the system is fine. It's the decisions made by the people in the system and the lack of consistency in those decisions that's the problem.

I don't know for certain but I'm willing to bet that the members of the panel don't look at past, similar incidents when making their decisions. Which is what they should do to ensure punishments are roughly similar, at least in the same season.

The RFL should be providing guidelines/instruction for particular issues that last throughout the season and not just for the start.


As ever with RL, if we want a part of it to be better we need to get better people in it and give them the resources to do the job properly. Which probably means spending more money on the disciplinary system. As I get the impression the disciplinary meetings currently more closely resemble that of an amateur league disciplinary meeting than a pro sport.

the obvious issue is that they grade the offence, give a range of possible punishments, then go outside that.

If O'loughlin can get 1 game for the offence, then the range of punishments for that offence isnt 2-3 games its 1-3 games. That makes no sense. If there were mitigating circumstances then that is what means the punishment is at the bottom end for that grading, not that we suddenly ignore the grading.

Spot on.

It's not spot on. It should be but that's not the system. The MRP send offences to the diciplinary with a recommendation, it's up to the diciplinary as to whether they agree with it or not and then to consider the incident and any mitigating or aggravating factors. I'd rather the MRP simply decide whether to charge or not charge and the diciplinary then decide the grade and punishment which would eliminate perceived controversy such as the SOL case.

To answer the title of the thread a notion of penalising team mates of a player who received a lenient punishment in order to 'redeem' themselves is more farcical than the RFL.

Comparing the incidents as some are is none sense as they are completely different offences.

Charnley was dumb, I understand his frustration but he was dumb and deserves whatever he gets. Touching the ref is something that isn't and shouldn't be allowed.

Tautai got it very wrong. Players are well aware that they cannot enter a tackle in such a manor, from what I've seen of similar incidents grade B is probably right.

What I will say and have said on many occasions in the past it the diciplinary IMO are generally too lenient and (again IMO) most offences should get longer bans than what they do.

99% of charges receive no question or criticism. Of the 1% that do, a great many of the complaints and demands for change make little sense and would likely be detrimental to the 99% of the cases that everyone is happy with.