It does though, doesn’t it. You say that people stay away because of swearing at the ref. The remedy is the education and enlightenment for the viewing public. That is the window that Sky and similar provide.

You also said, educate them and move on. The point is, they KNOW this is wrong. The education has been ongoing for a long time, and for a rep player like McGuire, there is no excuse of not knowing. The punishment for not adhering to the rule.

All of this weakens the corporate position. Fans acting like idiots is bad enough, but you can’t have the high profile players being idiots.

Look, you may not be offended. I’m not, personally. But if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Of course they know it's wrong but, in the heat of that moment between the 2 players they exchanged distasteful words. Fine them, and let's move on.

From what I see at games, and do occasionally hear at those with low attendances, 99.9% of communications between opposition players is trading insults and cursing each other, during the course of a game.

A simple remedy, to prevent this, is for the RFL to forbid any communication between players that are in opposing teams and for the referee to penalise anyone that does.

Totally agree.

All transgressions on the field of play carry a tariff of match bans, if found guilty of the offence. All coaching staff and players are aware of what is not acceptable as laid down in the rules by the sports governing body, so if you don't want to do the time, then don't do the crime. Learn from your mistakes and understand the reasoning for the rules, then you will minimise the amount of time that you're sat in the stands.

Whether these tariffs are deemed proportional to the offence, is subjective, and views will differ greatly.

They 100% will make an example of this, i can't see him just getting a fine and a slap on the wrists (which it should be). But i've got everything crossed for a common sense miracle

I can’t comprehend why people would expect a fine or warning for this under the guise of common sense. The offences are graded and published not only to players, but to the public. If they fail to adhere to the policy now, that becomes precedent, so if someone repeats it or similar, they would expect (and have a decent chance of securing) the same fate. That is common sense, otherwise the policy isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

If it’s a Grade F offence, and he has said what he is alleged to have, he should get a grade F sanction. If he appeals with mitigating circumstances (language barrier/repeating words used by the opponent/misheard/mistaken identity) the grade could change, but without that, he’s said something stupid that is categorised as F.

Don’t get me wrong, we’d miss him. But it’s 6 games. Leeds and Huddersfield are tricky, then it’s the teams that we must be beating if we have a hope of the playoffs. We don’t see Wigan, Saints or Catalan during that period. Take your medicine, sit it out and come back ready to make up for it at the Easter period. If I was Powell I’d be hopping mad at him and have him make a caged animal, released for that first fixture.

And then commit a high shot for a further 4 match ban.

I think the problem is that the grading doesn't take the circumstances into context. Of course we should attempt to eradicate such language with punishments, but shouldn't there be a range of punishments that reflect the context? For example, if a player targets homophobic abuse at a homosexual, that's a grade F, but careless use of terms in the heat of an argument should carry a lesser punishment shouldn't it?

If not, and it's as bad as targeted abuse itself then everyone please consider this: Tommy Makinson and Tom Lineham both grabbed the genitals of another player. If that act should the taken in the same context as a man touching anyone's genitals without their consent, then surely they deserve a lifetime ban and possibly a custodial sentence, no? 3 games? What about the offence caused to victims of rape and sexual abuse? What is it that makes words deserve far more serious repercussions than a sexual assault, and where is the same level of internet outrage we should be seeing for the latter? Same goes for players who deliberately try to hurt people on the field versus careless high tackles etc. Super Bennie W anyone?

But, there we go. I'd better not postulate anymore for fear of being cancelled

i think the two tommy's situation is a little easier to explain, in that linehams disciplinary (for a winger) was pretty crap, hence he got a bigger ban, also from what i recall at the time, the two circumstances were different, makinson was a ball carrier(dont s) scrambling to get up lineham was a tackler who clearly put his hand somewhere after making a tackle.

Thats why i looked at it.

According to the reports of 'contrary behaviour' and based on TV and camera shots, Makinson made a prolonged hard grip of Watts' penis. He got 5 games, I think Lineham got 3 for his squirrel grip?

So... if I saw someone use the word "S***tic" in the street during a heated argument, I'd think 'what an idiot'. However, if I saw a man grab and yank on another man's penis for a while without his consent, I'd probably consider that a teeny bit worse. But hey, we all (me included) wanted Makinson in the England squad that year.

"Funny old world" etc etc.

lineham got 8 matches

Cheers, I must have been thinking of one of his many other bans

indeed, and you may have forgot, when he came back, i think it was swinton or whoever we played in the cup the next season, he got 2/3 match ban for pushing someone in the back off the ball.