Brilliant argument/defense from some journos on Twitter ''It was 46-6 at the time with 10 minutes to go'' Oh that's fine, we'll just throw the full 17 on in future if that's the case.

WELL SAID!

On the face of it very shocking but then as was helpfully pointed out by a number of Salford fans on twitter Salford were given the same options as Widnes which are;
Take the the whole fine (which we've done) or
Have the fine halved and take a two point deduction.

Salford opted to go for the second option seeing as there was no threat of relegation at the time so I'm afraid this is another huge case of nothing to see here.
Thanks to the Salford fans who were quick to point this out.

I think there is one glaring mistake Widnes committed the offence twice in the same match so logic says your fine should have been set at £20,000 & 2 points, however logic is not a word I would use to describe the RFL.

I am not having a pop at Widnes who I know have also suffered at the hands of the RFL! I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies which then brings the game into disrepute.

They have considered both incidents separately if you read the notes. Acording to the journos and reading the notes they have seemingly graded each offence in terms of length of infringement and impact on the game much like they do for other infringements.. i.e. £500 for the first and £2000 for the second. If you look at the first one... one of our players is simply still on the field when the other player comes off. They have no impact on the game and are very quickly removed hence the very small fine.

In the second case one of our players does make a tackle and so the fine is significantly higher but again they other player, the 14th man, is quickly removed from the play.

Seriously is this for real ?