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