Kouca$h not happy with the outcome here :- www.totalrl.com/koukash-unimpres ... anded-rfl/?

Kouca$h not happy with the outcome here :- www.totalrl.com/koukash-unimpres ... anded-rfl/?

You're 'avin' a laugh ....

Brough looks up to see where the ref is (running away/not looking/following play), decides he will get away with a cheap & nasty shot to the neck face with a forearm smash.

Pre meditated & cowardly.

Nuff said.

2 game ban and £300 fine is the outcome

Which shows that Koukash & now Smith are correct ....

RFL, not fit for purpose.

It's just getting silly now; the disciplinary panel is making inexplicably stupid decisions on a week by week basis, and no one seems willing, or able, to bring them into line. Makes the RFL look foolish and infuriates owners, players and supporters.

Maybe the only stakeholder who matters now is Sky, and they won't want big name players banned for multiple games, for fear of impacting on the viewing figures?

The thing that annoys me about this one is they completely ignore their own guidelines. I said earlier in the thread I thought it was a grade C and that's what he got. I've no problem with the end result, it's how they got there I have a problem with.

Going off their guidelines and looking at the incident there's no doubt it was intentional and therefore should have carried a greater charge. If you get a high tackle for example, there's a possibility it could be intentional, it could, and is in most cases either mis timed and it is virtually impossible to prove either way. This one is different as I can't see any way it was anything but intentional.

The thing that annoys me about this one is they completely ignore their own guidelines. I said earlier in the thread I thought it was a grade C and that's what he got. I've no problem with the end result, it's how they got there I have a problem with.

Going off their guidelines and looking at the incident there's no doubt it was intentional and therefore should have carried a greater charge. If you get a high tackle for example, there's a possibility it could be intentional, it could, and is in most cases either mis timed and it is virtually impossible to prove either way. This one is different as I can't see any way it was anything but intentional. If they decide to have these guidelines they should follow them.

Does look corrupt and always goes in favour of the offending player, maybe the disciplinary needs to change the name, to Players Offending Offload Panel............P.O.O.P for short.

Pushing himself up using an elbow on someones head and they accept that as an excuse ha! I've heard it all now.
Boudebza at the start of the season got 4 games for a legitimate tackle and now in recent weeks O'loughlin gets 1 game for taking someones head off (with a former team mate on the panel) and Brough gets 2 games for elbowing a defenceless player in the head.
It is just laughable

The disciplinary just doesn't seem to be impartial like it should be.

The players disciplinary record should be taken into account but nothing else.

The players status, the 'level' of team he plays for etc shouldn't be considered a factor. The fact that they might have a 'big game' coming up on TV in 2 weeks time shouldn't be considered a factor. Yet sometimes it seems as though all of those play a part when sentencing is handed out.

For example, the tackle by O'Loughlin a few weeks ago when he took out Annakin and ended his season. He was charged with a grade C and yet ended up missing just 1 match despite clearly being guilty of an awful tackle.

I don't for a second believe that if the roles had been reversed and Annakin had done that exact same tackle on O'Loughlin and ended HIS season that he would have only been given a 1 match ban.

I think they have brought in too many factors to make the offence more tolerated and hence controversy decision making. The disciplinary seem to accept certain players have a tackling technique which seems to be sympathetic in the eyes of the disciplinary.
Take O'Loughlin as an example the majority of his tackling is done in the top shoulder and head areas, I think he has brought up to the disciplinary on around 32 occasions of which 28 of those are heads tackles. With receiving just one incident ban has his style of tackling been accepted by the disciplinary, if thats the case then he will always have a good discipline record.
I fully agree if Annakin had done the same tackle on O'Loughlin and ended his season the ban would be much more, it seems this holds up in the lower divisions as well.

Very good post and it's very hard to argue with any of that.
Brough certainly meant to strike his opponent in the face, no doubt whatsoever that his actions were deliberate.
However, what he did wasnt the same as elbowing someone in the face with the point of the elbow and there should be a difference in the penalty.

It would not surprise me if the disciplinary panel were being inconsistent on purpose. This sport is desperate for attention and so causing controversy through inadequate proceedings might grab a few headlines.

Or they might be downright gutless.

I just think they struggle to be consistent and leave themselves open to criticism. Add in a dose of typical RL fan hysteria and you have a disgrace and a joke.

3 matches would seem to be more appropriate for Brough's offence IMO.

Compare & contrast SL punishments to those meated out in Championship/C'ship 1.

Like for like the severity of punishment on lower League RL players appears to be much higher than in SL.

It is the ineptitude of the RFL in seeing what Joe Public sees & adjudicating accordingly that grates for me, that & the disparity in penalty between like for like incidents.