Not necessarily. If the referee was unsighted then on-report was the correct decision, thats what it is there for.

As it is I dont think either will be banned, both looked lazy rather than malicious.

If they do get banned however, ill just accept that as a difference of opinion between me and the disciplinary panel, rather than some crazy conspiracy where the RFL are trying to engineer a Leeds GF win by banning Mike bloody Mcilorum.

no. it could be they didn't get a great look at them. although in this case there was a clear view for both.

And if they don't does that mean they got it right? I doubt you'd see it that way.

Need to calm down, inconsistencies and chance only have meaning when you make stories up to rationalise randomness. The ref's performance was shoddy and more money needs to go into it quite frankly, but we all knew this before.

This is the exact point that is the issue. Inconsistency. Just last week, 1:30 to go, ah well, lets just let it go.

If it's the worst refereeing performance where's your assessment of the Catalans infringements. You have ignored them! Why's that?

dirty? pulling a player back? first week of the following season tommy leuleii (sp) did the same thing. difference is he was in a wigan shirt though

McGuire deserved a red. He went swinging and connected with the side of the head - it was a disgusting challenge. Fakir should have gone too.

Burrow's knock on at the scrum should have been picked up. Peacock's offside/not square should have been picked up too. Two atrocious decisions that went against the Catalans.

I feel very sorry for them. Inept refereeing cost them big time.

not the money but the man in charge

they got 3 times the penalties Leeds did.

If McIllorum received a ban from the disciplinary panel, does that mean the officials on the field got it right?

And?

Does that make it all better that the officials missed the incidents they did?

And McG wore a Leeds shirt but also did more than pulling back.

Money = More men to choose from/better training = Better men chosen = Better refs = Better product.

Unfortunately, this would probably mean a net loss in terms off money (improvement in quality of matches probably wouldn't translate to cover costs) so unfortunately it's not a decision likely to be made.

Did he? What else did he do in that incident?