What bothers me about the process is only 1 person watches each game and then decides what goes to the panel. So if you think about all the times people moan about other incidents that are missed then for me there’s your answer.

I can’t see how having 1 person only deciding what goes up in front of the panel and the panel making a decision on level of penalty is acceptable. We can see who the 6 people are we just don’t know which game they watch. For me 3 people should look at each game.

Then if and when a player decides to appeal we have KC and 3 side panel members, sorry could not stop laughing when I saw Adrian Morley’s name on there. But a KC is not cheap no wonder the RFL is potless when paying these people are we scared to police it ourselves.

Next all these rules that we have now and how many that are saying about the difference between here and the NRL it’s simple, our sport is being sued to death by players that played back in the day now looking for a payoff on something we did not know much about as we do now. No ignorance not an excuse but it was what is back then and now the RFL are making all these rules because they just can’t afford more lawsuits.

What difference is there if one ref or one hundred decide what goes to tribunal or not?
It is the judiciary that lays down the penalties, and surely there is more than one person sitting on the panel.

I wouldn't be surprised if the crusher tackle on Thewlis was missed while the nominated viewer was brewing up.

That’s kind of my point, it should be more than 1 person watching any given match. Not on the same level but has anyone been sat watching a game and said to a friend “Did you just see that then” I know I have and that’s why it bothers me.

And while the RFL are seemingly killing our sport the RFU as announced it will be paying Clubs £33 million a season to enhance the England team.

The both incidents involving Hughes would've been reviewed in detail, because they were cited, either via a yellow card or on report.

Surprised the crusher didnt result in a charge of some description, even if it was the £250 fine that they throw around like confetti. Can only assume it's because Thewlis' head was released before pressure went onto it. (or at least that is what is deemed to have happened)

As for Vaughan, was always going to be a grade D, I thought it would be reduced to 2 on contesting it. The head contact framework desperately needs rewording. Every tackle is forceful, how do you tackle someone without any force?! Should only get a red and a long ban if it is reckless imo.

Indeed. They always say "it's forceful and dangerous". The concept of an un-forceful contact is clearly nonsense (Newton's 2nd law of motion etc ...... Isaac not Terry). So what is the threshold of "force" and how is judged ?

Some people say that "the players need to learn about making these kind of tackles". However, it seems likely to me that Vaughan has made that same type of tackle 100 times this season, and in such situations, where there are so many variables involved - speed, direction, movement, inevitable force, other players in and around the tackle, etc - there is always going to be a certain amount of randomness about where the point of contact ends up being. I don't think there was any malicious intent in the tackle whatsoever, and 99% of the time he'd make the exact same tackle and there would be a different point of contact and no drama. In which case, what is he really supposed to learn from it? Maybe that any upper body tackle now risks a red card, if you get unlucky. Is that really where we want the game to go?

I'm not one to advocate vandalism but I'm surprised nobody has egged that mural yet. The man's a tosspot anyway, shows how petty he is that he was happy to manage our nearest rivals because we sacked him. And he's another armchair philosopher like JJB or Phil Clarke who think they're smarter than the average RL viewer. No mate you're a petty hot head who, if playing by your own rules, would've been banned for most of your average season.

Unfortunately that is where the game is at the moment. They wanted to eliminate upright tackles like that one, to the extent they were looking at the armpit height rule.

Vaughan will have to do more to show that he's bent his knees / back to get his shoulder lower. At some point you are very likely to be travelling to Wigan or KR in a semi final where even a yellow card could prove very costly. Standing as upright as he did will always run the risk of a card of some description.

Would ,for instance ,a text book tackle ,one on one round the legs , be any less dangerous if the tackled players head collides with the ground or a third party boot? The very way human beings are constructed means that the head will never be far away from an opponents shoulder so maybe a major rethink on tackling techniques is needed .

Harsh. He gave his all as a player. It is fair to say that pre match myself and my mate Neil would chuckle about the interview he would have given to GMR the day before emphasising the need for discipline…it was a case of when not if PC would lose it.

He should probably learn that he needs to get lower. He was far too high for shoulder contact and if he doesn’t learn then he’s going to have this happen time and time again. The rules aren’t going to change, or if they do then it’s only going to get more harsh

Wow! Rules are rules and it's the players that need to learn? Well, that's quite the change of tune from when Makinson got banned, and you said: "I genuinely can't stand the MRP. Don't know what they do, or what they bring to the game. Handing out retroactive bans for everything has always been stupid as love and that's not even talking about the inconsistency and incompetence they exhibit in doing that stupid job. We need a new system asap."

Also telling Vaughan to get lower when Makinson jumped in the air AGAIN!!

I’m still baffled as to why Bell never received a lengthy ban for his assault on Ratchford. That was no accident.