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!

IIRC the panel changes from week to week so consistency would have to depend on fairly comprehensive and restrictive guidance from the RFL to who ever in on the panel, in which case why have the panel.

I think that description should used when trying to asses the severity of an incident. Helps add abit of perspective.

It was a cheap shot from brough.............but it was no Ben Flower.

Maybe the RFL could issue the panel with a series of descriptors - ranging from a 'Moore' (an offence that someone says happened but there is no actual evidence of) right up to a 'Flower' (a brutal street mugging type offence, in plain view of two dozen HD super-zoom cameras and 50k supporters.) They could have a special category of 'Wigan' offences, which are used to denote those specific circumstances in which Shaun Wane won't be happy with any sanction, so the punishment can be pre-mitigated, to avoid upsetting him?

Alternatively, they could get people with some actual expertise and no (perceived or real) club bias, to make straightforward decisions based on the evidence they have available, regardless of who the offender plays for, how many times he's managed to wriggle out of it in the past, or what part of the season we happen to be in and whether his club is in contention. But that would be outrageous.

Or a 'wakefield' - ban by default.

Indeed - the 'Wakefield' category could be used to describe an offence where the panel can use absolute discretion to do whatever they want, because not enough people give a toss for it make any difference either way. Also useful in specific circumstances where a high profile player has fouled a colleague from a less significant club - his offence can be downgraded, using the "it's only Wakey" precedent, as established by Messrs Wane and O'Loughlin, 2016.

Of course it wasn't a 'Ben Flower incident', but he didn't get a 'Ben Flower punishment, did he?

It was a very nasty and premeditated cheap shot, and he's got off too lightly.

As for O'Loughlin, as a Wigan fan I'd say this: I think it's arguable whether there was malice intent, but from the point of view of player welfare it was certainly reckless, and yes, he should have got a longer ban. As many Wigan fans said on here at the time, punishments across the board are generally way too lenient. Going back to Brough, there was absolutely no doubt that there was malice intent in his case, and the punishment should have reflected that. Saying it was accidental contact with the elbow is a sick joke.

If anyone handed Sam or Lockers a similar tackle to the one that left anakin's season over then they would receive a very hefty ban imo
A 1 game ban for Lockers was disgraceful,but i suppose its a benefit to opposing sides by keeping him available for selection each week as he is clearly finished