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.

A cowardly, innocuous action from Brough. I can't get worked up about it, 2 matches is sufficient. Whereas Flanders got away with attempted murder.

The punishments should be higher with like for like incidents the lower down the system we go in my opinion.

All the SL players are full time with insurance and have much better access to good training, rehab, physics etc etc. In the Championship & League 1 there are obviously lots of part time players for whom an injury is an utter disaster. So the punishments should be higher.

Whilst on the one had I agree with that, on the other it would send out a message to SL players that the RFL would be more lenient with them and as such the various acts of foul play would continue.

But by that logic, how do you deal with an incident in a Championship match between Bradford and Leigh, who likely have access to the rehab facilities etc as per a SL team? Do you still treat them under Championship rules? Also how do you deal with an incident in a Cup/8's game between say Leeds and Batley, where it's across two leagues?

The punishment should be the same regardless of the league it committed in and who it's committed on.

I tend to agree - in an already inconsistent area, the last thing we need is more inconsistency.

If the object of the disciplinary process is to protect the welfare of players by dealing with foul play, then the message should be that the welfare of *all* players is of equal importance; by extension, that protects the integrity of the sport. As it stands now, the message appears to be that the welfare of a player is contingent on the profile of the offender, or the team he plays for. That can't be right.

I dislike Brough as much as the next man but it was hardly a Ben Flower moment. Two seems about right.

As for Bradford and Leigh they're in a mostly part time league so it would be under harsher punishments the same as the rest of the league.

As for a cross leagues game then go by the lower league and the harsher punishments.

I know what people mean about inconsistency and adding to it however we also have to take into account differing contexts and circumstances. For instance I don't think there's many of us who want to see big bans handed out for a bit of a stand-up, face to face scrap in a SL game, however in the amateur leagues there should be big bans handed out. So I don't have a problem with having a disciplinary system that recognises the differences between leagues. The problem comes when there's such inconsistency within the same league.

Wigan hater!