I've stated this many times over the years.
I get fed up of a team suffering from foul play when their players are injured and have to be withdrawn and/or injured for future games, only to see their rivals benefit from the suspension that then follows.

If that had happened last Friday then I dare say the result against 11 man Salford could have been different!

And if my Uncle had tits he'd be my Auntie....

Although we mullered you with 12 last season.

Yeah, we deserved that after putting 42 points past you at home. "It will never happen again" again.

very good point

Another very good point.

How about the only person allowed to make contact below the thigh is involved in a one man tackle.

The grapple tactics employed today are ruining our game.

Are kyd the Butcher will tell you at school a million years ago you stood your ground, stooped down and then drove the shoulder into the midriff, or just smothered them and you ended up on your but an effective one on one had been made.

The referees/establishment as are as fault as anyone.

I know its a different incident but peacock got sent off v leigh i think it was or sin binned for fighting and no ban. Hauraki gets punches thrown at him from bateman so obviously reacts and he gets a 2 game ban. All we want is consistency!

The trouble is, that the rules that govern the sport have been tightened and the way that RL players defend (Both in NRL and SL) has evolved.

Defense follows a couple of basic rules. Collision. Control. Grapple/Wrestle. And finally, dictate the PTB speed. Whether we agree with the way RL defense acts, this is the basic concept of modern RL defense.

The rules have tightened-up on the collision aspect. Banning shoulder charges. The grappling/wrestling aspect is an inevitable consequence of the collision. Less players are initially put to ground. This is what's leading to an increase in third man dangerous tackles as players try to ground the standing ball carrier. The defenses ultimate aim is to control and dictate the speed the opposition can ptb, and this is leading to an increase in spear tackling and raising the legs dangerously high.

The easiest way to combat these problems is if the refs call held sooner.

It would force defending teams to concentrate on grounding the player first before concentrating on the collision and control. Therefore, hopefully, forcing them to defend in a more traditional way. They could also just say that attacking the legs of a ball carrier already engaged by defenders become illegal. Like the shoulder charge. Supporting defenders could only come in above the waist. Not sure if that's feasible though to be honest.

Yes,it was bad but if that's the worst you've seen in 48 years..............................

I personally think that the format of the judiciary committee is flawed.

As it stands, each incident is judged on its merit and context. Which seems fair enough as no two incidents, even of the same type, are identical. But to me, instead of this there should simply be a blanket rule for each incident where they are simply judged on that charge. This way everyone on the same charge gets the same ban. It's consistent. It may mean that some ambiguous incidents get over-penalized but it retains consistency.

The other problem at the moment, is that a players history and form are taken into account with regards punishment and I think that's wrong. It's a form of pre-judgement before an incident is even looked at. Not only does it bias the guys negatively who have been up in front of the judiciary before, it also allows for watered-down penalties for potentially serious incidents to players who don't regularly visit the judiciary. Foul play is foul play and should be punished consistently. This is what annoys fans.

I'm not sure I agree with a blanket policy. The circumstances of each incident are different so for instance the punch by hauraki against wigan shouldn't be judged the same as the flower incident. a head high shot could be reckless or accidental. How do you decide what incident is the same as another? I also think that past indiscretions should be taken into account. If a player is endangering others with a particular technique and he's had warnings about it before and continues to use it then that should be taken into account.