That was my point.

Ben Currie touched Richard Silverwood during Wires cup game against Leigh last season (search on the well known video hosting site for challenge cup 2015 warrington leigh and go to 61:30 in the match). For that innocuous little push Currie got three games reduced to two with an EGP. Any less than three for Charnley would be a farce.

Charnley 2 matches and £300 fine.

Talima Tautai pleads not guilty to dangerous contact, found guilty. 2 match ban and £300 fine.

Charnely pleads guilty gets two matches for something that at best was a fine. Tautai pleads not guilty and gets two matches for a tackle that was potentially career ending. Sorry both the system and the people involved are comical.

I thought it was a sending off offence for making contact with a match official? or have i got that wrong?

Either way, it should be clamped down on immediately!

You said it yourself, they're possible punishments, just a guide for the panel. Of course there are mitigating circumstances for every case.

I don't think its so much the people making the decisions (granted there have been one or two decisions that seems strange) but it's the grading. Its too leinient.

Stronger sentences should be handed out across the board. Cannonball tackles should be 10 games minimum.

Stuart Fielden said last night on radio yorkshire that it's the club's that can change that. They sign off the rules.

So instead of club chairman tweeting and moaning like a bloody teenagers,every week about the dsiclpinary, do something and get the rules changed.

They just throw the word consistency around but you're never going to get it as everyone disagrees on how long a player should be banned for

But the mitigation should be the reason the ban is at the lower end of the scale, not off the scale completely.

Why bother having a range of punishments for each grading if the panel can then simply decide something else?

In fact why bother with gradings at all?

Realistically what the O'loughlin case shows (and i accept its not just him and Im not trying to show a Wigan bias or anything like that) is that the gradings are essentially meaningless. A Grade C head high tackle doesnt carry a 2-3 game ban, it carries a 0 to Sin Die ban, the same as grade A, B, D, E and F.

I get that Charnley didnt do an awful lot, and 2 games seems harsh

But his punishment isnt really for him, nor really was it to protect the referee. Its to protect the referee at youth and amateur level who dont have 15 cameras protecting them.

This. A thousand times this.

I get that to a point however the rules/punishments at pro level cannot be used in that way. They have to be for the benefit of the pro competition.

For instance I think most people don't want to see a stray high arm or the odd bit of a scrap harshly punished at pro level. But at amateur level they should be very very harshly punished.

The same goes for touching the ref. I'd have been happy with a sin binning for Charnley. I get that pro players can get very worked up. It's their livlihood's and a massive part of their life and who they are. They train all week and go through often huge amounts of pain and adversity (both physical and mental) to play at a weekend. So I can understand a player losing control and doing what Charnley did. (That doesn't mean I condone it nor that I think it should go unpunished).

However at amateur level NOBODY should be anywhere close to that level of mental amplitude. So the exact same incident should get a much, much higher punishment at amateur level than at pro level. That punishment at amateur level (along with changing the backward attitudes) is what will deter the actions at amateur level, not what happens in SL.