I cannot understand the recent trend of putting players on report for infringements that the referee has seen but does not have the courage to act upon.
The placing of a player on report means that ok the player may or may not be banned from the next game(s) but his team can bring in another player to replace him whilst he serves his ban.
The whole idea of sin binning was to stop foul play in that the offender's team are penalised for his misdemeanour and suffer accordingly.
This latest trend of placing on report is just a kop out on the part of the referees.

Not punishing that sort of play will mean it will happen over and over again until someone has their jaw, cheekbone or eye socket fractured and only then will the RFL start coming down on it.

It's as dangerous as anything else in our game.

I also do not think placing of a player on report means that ok the player may or may not be banned from the next game(s) but if he is his team can bring in another player to replace him whilst he serves his ban and may not cost them points in the league.
The whole idea of sin binning was to stop foul play in that the offender's team are penalised for his misdemeanour and suffer accordingly in that game and that game only? But some are very poor and need further action also some are not too bad, but at least the team sinned against gets some reward.

I always thought that the on report system was introduced for those occasions where the officials had a good idea that something had happened but none had actually seen it. To me this introduced a paradox - if an official hadn't seen an offence then how could he give a penalty? If he had seen it then why place a player on report? This 'aid' to the officials is now clearly abused as seen by Silverwood on Friday. He saw clearly what Lauaki had done (the spear) proved by his talking to and commenting on Blythe landing on his back.

In the same way referees are now abusing the 'pass the ball after held is called'. We have already seen players sent back when they got up and ran after clearly being tackled - not what the rule was introduced for.

On the basis that every minute of every Super League game is reviewed anyway I would say the on report system is now completely redundant and should be scrapped.

You often hear football fans saying a sin bin should be brought in, as it allows a punishment for things that are more than a foul, but not quite worthy of a sending off. IMO, that's how I always viewed the sin bin in our game. It is now almost extinct, whilst the report has become what the yellow card is in football, a cop out.

IMO, the sin bin doesn't even ruin the spectacle, foul play and professional fouls ruin the spectacle for me.

I can understand it being useful where you've got an altercation and players have run in to get involved. Even though the ref has seen the incident it's very difficult to know exactly who was involved and to what extent.

What really annoys me about this is the lack of consistency being shown. After the fuss about Tommy Lee not being sent off for trying to decapitate Briers, Silverwood sent Moa off in the game the following night for an incident that wasn't nearly as bad. If that was because of the fuss generated by the Lee incident then they've obviously got very short memories. If it was because Rinaldi (?) was actually injured then it's a bit like locking the door when the horse is bolted. Cards should be used to punish dangerous play whether someone gets injured or not.

Are Wigan really going to suffer from Lauaki being banned? No.