Are the current RFL match review panel up to standard if players they have put forward on a grade C charge (which is supposed to be the 3rd most serious charge) are being cleared when their case comes up in front of the disciplinary panel as happened with Murphy and Casty this evening? Also, is it published anywhere who is on this panel?

Does the system need an overhaul?

Joel Moon was charged with a Grade C which carries a 2/3 match ban but was found guilty of a Grade B and banned 1 game.

Moon plead guilty IIRC so they may have been lenient with the punishment.

Quote: Karlos13 "Also, is it published anywhere who is on this panel? ?'" It used to be on the RFL website, but it currently only shows last season's rota. The panel then included Nathan McAvoy and Danny Sculthorpe media.therfl.co.uk/docs/DISCIPLI ... Y-SEPT.doc

Quote: Karlos13 "Also, is it published anywhere who is on this panel? ?'" It used to be on the RFL website, but it currently only shows last season's rota. The panel then included Nathan McAvoy and Danny Sculthorpe media.therfl.co.uk/docs/DISCIPLI ... Y-SEPT.doc

But if the tariff for the offence is two to three games, surely the disciplinary board can’t reduce the ban further simply because the player admits his guilt?

Sorry, why am I asking the question, firstly this is the RFL after all, & secondly there’s more important things in life.

Particular when he's a player with a nasty history when it comes to on field assaults.

IMO more needs to be done on the disciplinary side of things. Banning players from future games doesn't necessarily punish the perp and it doesn't compensate the recipient. They should be taking more on field reviews. Send the buggers off.

Did he hurt a Saints player once by any chance?

I would imagine that the charge comes from watching video evidence. This usually reflects the case and its facts accurately, but occasionally when a player presents his defence their are mitigating circumstances or evidence on video that was not noticed. In those cases the charge grade may be changed, or the panel may find the player not guilty.

What would be the point of allowing players to defend themselves if the evidence is disregarded? Furthermore, the system would be unfair if players couldn't defend themselves.

So what's the problem?

If that relates to Moon I don't know whether to laugh or send the men in white coats round.

Have a read of the disciplinary report on the Percival incident (I assume that's the one you're referring to if it is Moon). The one where the panel accepts that the contact with the head was accidental as the ball carrier was being tackled and fell forward, The one where the panel notes Moon's usually excellent tackling technique.

I know it's hard to see things through those Red V blinkers, but try it occasionally. You'll become a better human being for it.