I wonder how much he'll get fined after Dr K has set the precedent?

There's nothing new about problems over inconsistency in disciplinary system, whether wilful or just poor design. Having said that I thought things are a bit better than they used to be.

Unfortunately the disciplinary system is one area where the RFL has considerable discretionary power over clubs, and for that reason there will always be a reluctance to move to something genuinely independent, where interests and personal biases are removed as much as possible.

I personally would go with a much wider review panel who have been trained to understand each offence, each member gets a copy of the video and has to independently watch and grade each offence and then submit their decision. These are then collated centrally, and the submissions of panel members who have an "interest" in the club affected are excluded (but retained for analysis). An "interest" would be along the lines of the panel member being a current or former employee of the affected club, a known supporter of the affected club, or being an employee of a club that will play the affected club in the next 4 weeks. The average response for valid gradings would then be the final grading for charging the player. This might sound complex but in the modern world a pretty basic app could be written to pull it together. All the panel member has to do is watch a video each week and fill in a basic online form, they don't need to worry about whether they have an "interest".

Once the offence is graded the player/club can submit a plea. If they contest the grading they appear before a panel selected randomly from members who do not have "interests" who can reduce the grading or dismiss entirely if sufficiently convinced.

Any penalty is then based on set points for offence minus a set deduction for an early plea, plus a set number of additional points based on previous disiplinary record.

The video clip and the final grading can then be banked as evidence of precedence for similar offences. This can be used to regularly refresh the training of the panel members on what each charge looks like.

As much as possible this system separates out the grading of the offence and the final penalty. Each offence is judged on its own merits and accrues points on its own merits, and the penalty is not arbitrary.

The RFL statement looks like a standard pre-written response. I'm sure I have seen the same statement issued by the RFL sometime last season!!!!

The RFL have been dragging the great game of Rugby League back for too long!!!!

As an FC fan it is not often (if ever) I agree with Neil Hudgell, but on this occasion he's absolutely bang on the money. The sad thing is that he'll likely get no support from his fellow chairmen or directors of other clubs, the players union will say nowt and the fans will be completely ignored or at best passed off as not understanding the game.

Blake Solly's statement in respect to the disciplinary process being widely regarded as the envy of other major sports is a downright lie, I've had some experience of Red Hall disciplinary meetings at an amateur level and they are a joke. You have Hicks running around like he owns the place and treating everyone like they are dogsheite, the panel members are so out of touch it is embarrassing. The whole process stinks and should have been updated years ago.

The game of rugby league is evolving, unfortunately the morons at Red Hall are unable to keep the pace, so their natural instinct is to restrain it and pull it back. All this after the successful world cup should have seen us forging ahead.

Sorry, but I've just about had my time with the professional side of the sport, it is not the product it was. Time to walk away and concentrate solely on amateur Rugby League.

Blake Solly is a complete and utter joke. His job position is "Director of Standards and Licensing" and here is what the licensing report had to say about Bradford and the grade B he gave them...



How did that work out, Blake? Shouldn't you have looked into those plans a little deeper?

So anything he says should just be ignored. The panel is a complete shambles and as inconsistent as they come, it needs a major overhaul...in fact, everything at Red Hall needs a major overhaul.

Transparency?! It means we can see right through them.

Anyone seen @RugbyDiscipline ?

Not quite true - forom TwitterMarwan Koukash ‏@drmarwanK 56m
Another strong voice for RL, the HKR Chairman @NeilHudgell . Give him a follow

As our club chairman Hudgel has usualy voiced his concerns for the game, somtimes I wish he would not but on this occasion he is spot on.
Is the RFL disciplinary board for super League the same as the lower divisions & amatuer teams? if so I am not suprised. I was once involved in a hearing for an amatuer side were we had video evidance that proved the ref was not only wrong but the offence had not even happened (striking an oponant) They would not watch it or accept the oposition coaches writen report saying that it had not happened, since I have never had anything but contempt for the system. It is not fit for purpose.

The Whiting tackle was worse in my view, although Poore was an idiot as well and deserved the ban he got, it's just a shame the disciplinary panel have not been consistent once again, someone should have copped a ban for the Whiting tackle.

Whether or not it's true, the view is that a player is treated according to the club he plays for and his standing in the game, not for the incident he is up for.

Consistently inconsistent is the phrase id use

As for that Blake Solly statement, it makes him seem an even bigger pompous (insert expletive here) than i first thought. Absolutely baffling.

There is an easy solution to this.
Players should not foul other players and learn how to tackle. They may then not be penalised and brought before the panel.
A bit radical but you never know some players may learn!

Do you work for the RFL? as they didn't really answer the points made either.

Most stuff at disciplinaries are not acts carried on purpose, the RFL have just gone over the top recently. Where clear intent is shown (gouging or biting) we should give more RU type bans, but I'm sorry a bit of old fashioned biff is nothing.

www.ipetitions.com/petition/RFL-change

www.ipetitions.com/petition/RFL-change