The fact that players of both teams seemed to be putting in the effort, and that (some) Castleford fans were aggrieved by what happened suggests to me that they don't see the regular season as irrelevant.

That said, in the position Salford are in this season (as in being a scratch team made up of other clubs' offcuts, rather than their league position) does make the points deduction irrelevant. And I think we can be thankful there is no automatic P&R, because it wouldn't look too good if Salford were relegated on the back of a brief and unfortunate error like this, particularly given the initial punishment meted out by the RFL.

Was the touch line official held accountable in any way for the mistake? Was his name mentioned when the RFL made statements on the matter? It's pathetic the RFL just make it up as they go along and protect their own.

Yes the two points and fine is irrelevent to Salford from a league standing aspect but it's the damage and embarrassment these power hungry people cause the game. And another question, do we know or will we ever find out who was on the panel that came to this latest conclusion?

The one thing that really infuriates me is the fact Jordan Tansey should have walked much earlier in the game for a shocking head high tackle on Williams. These Cas supporters go on about justice it's a joke. Let's be real Tansey only go away with it because Alibert took the easy option of putting it on report. And then we all know that Tansey only escaped a ban because of the 14 man issue and the first judgement of not reversing the result.

No wonder the Salford/ Manchester public won't buy into rugby league it's an absolute eef-in joke run by total amatuers with ulterior motives.

I know it's not in my best interests as a Salford supporter but If I was Koukash I'd be very tempted to tell Nigel Wood to stick his Superleague up his fat ar$e and let it die of a slow death in the shadows of RU and the NRL.

Superleague can't even find a main sponsor and that tells you everything you need to know because no company wants to be associated with the sport. Unless something drastic changes in Superleague it will be semi professional within 3 years, trust me.

Not bitter, then?

As for shocking head high tackles, they happen - Cockayne nearly had his head taken off by a Salford player on Monday.

Those two poins were defended by 14 men when Cas were on top, and both the replacement and the man replaced were involved in play. It's taken a while, but justice has been done. As for the deduction being irrelevant - not finishing bottom means a lot to a team in difficulties, I know that from experience!

If you want to interpret someone that's just being honest as someone being bitter it matters little to me. If it helps you to label me bitter because you don't want to accept reality and criticism of the sport, good for you.

the only player to have action taken against him from Mondays game was a Wakefield player, so get your facts rights.
as for the Cas game, Castleford should have been down to 12 men. and what about the 4th official who got it wrong (not a word) , but every week the ref and others get it wrong , so why pick on Salford

By your interpretation that means the RFL based their decision on premonition.

It does not matter the circumstances at the point when 14 men were fielded, the RFL cannot see the future. Cas may have gone on to win, but equally they may not have. It matters not how likely those circumstances are, the mere fact that human beings do not know the outcome of the future means that you cannot base a decision on what may have happened.

Does that seem fair to you?

It makes very little odds to Salford in the long run as there's nothing to play for anyway. But to say justice has been done when someone made a mistake and the RFL base a decision on mystic Meg is sloppy to say the least.

Maybe you need to get out more?

It will be interesting to what punishment Hull FC receive for fielding 14 players for a brief period...

'Get you're facts right', eh? what facts are these then and what's the highlighted got do with anything he said. His point is that high tackles sometimes go unpunished, like what happened to Cockayne the other day, it happens all the time.

Lol

I can see your neck veins

90 percent sure Tansey took an early guilty plea that's why he wasn't banned HTH

I take the 2 points off them for next season, that will damage their chances to finish in the top 12.

Can't see that happening to be honest - wasn't it big Nige who brought the good Dr into SL in the first place - plane ride to Dubai? Quite a few pundits think along the same lines as yourself though - that he will jack-in if he doesn't get his own way so you could be right.

Regarding the Tansey incedent. When he faced the disciplinary he took the early guilty plee - thats why he didn't get a ban. The ref didn't spot the high tackle - just the same as he didn't spot your 14th man. Consistent.

This comes close to the heart of why I think this is a very poor decision by the RFL. Although some Castleford fans have had their tummies tickled and can sleep safe in their beds knowing justice has prevailed, the RFL has set a very dangerous precedent by deducting points on the basis of what [imight[/i have happened (i.e. Castleford [imight[/i have scored in one of the three plays that took place while Salford had 14 players on the field).

For me, the problem is one of "where does it end?" In recent times, I've seen Salford lose to a team whose best player on the day tested positive after the match for a recreational drug that, you could argue, acted as a stimulant (I'm sure you can work out who that was). I've seen us lose to another team where one player scored two tries, one of which saw him bulldoze through the Salford defence close to the line, only to find a few weeks later he was on steroids. In these cases - particularly the second one - there is, for me, more compelling evidence that the actions of the players involved led to Salford losing the match than there is evidence that Salford's actions against Castleford led to Castleford losing. In neither case did the clubs involved lose points. Now, should an incident like one of these happen again, surely the RFL would, for consistency, be expected to deduct points. But would they, or would they buckle under the pressure? It gets difficult because other teams that had lost to the offending team could argue that the points won in their games should be deducted too. So, I suspect the RFL would buckle, leaving them open to accusations of inconsistency and incompetence. You can apply a similar argument to salary cap breaches too.

Surely the CEO should be trying to avoid situations like this, not diving headfirst into them. I get the feeling that the points deduction wouldn't have happened had Richard Lewis still been there, because he was smart enough to see where that road led to.