If it's Cullen's job to make sure Wire are given an easy ride, then he's done a pretty poor job, considering he basically crippled our season, handing out 2 huge bans to McGuire, which it could easily be argued was the catalyst for wrecking any morale and momentum that the side was building?

Think it was a good bet at least one of them would get off. https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... eptember-5

Think it was a good bet at least one of them would get off. https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... eptember-5

Yeh but that’s been overlooked by all the teams around us now.

Weird because all the internet experts said that King’s ban was the only justified one and yet he has had his ban overturned.

Knowles only got a big ban for the tackle that injured Cooper because Cullen is cooper's father in law. Well, that's according to one of our friends over on redvee. They really are a special breed!

They would though, which is the problem the sport has with the MRP. It's repeatedly banning players for things that referees wouldn't even give penalties for. There was nothing dirty in that Wigan - Salford game, yet they found 7 charges and 4 bans, three of which have been found to be incorrect. In how many roles can you have a 75% failure rate and not have questions asked I wonder?

A poster on Redvee?

Only THREE?! If that’s the case we should demand our money back.*



*For the purpose of any libel lawyers who may be reading this is an attempt at humour.

Admittedly the RFL are in a position of 'duty of care' and no doubt are concerned about legal action regarding head injuries and older/retired players,
but the current regime and penalties for ( what constitutes) foul play does seem ludicrous. Whether intentional or not it seems to shout ' look at how seriously we are taking our responsibilities ' rather than focusing on the job in hand. Then there is the situation with appeals. Initially they seem to have decided that they would not allow their decisions to be questioned (frivolous appeal), now it looks as though appeals are to be allowed again. Finally the imbalance between objectionable language and play likely to cause serious injury needs looking at.

Somebody needs to get a grip, at the moment it looks as though Liz Truss is running the committee.

The success rate of appeals looks imbalanced but if you put the number of bans against the number of appeals against successful appeals then maybe not quite so much (I haven’t done the calculation just guessing).
How the punishment for language used can be so disproportionate to physical injury (especially intentional actions) definitely needs reviewing. In criminal law it is the reverse.

Yeah but Phil Veivers is on the board and he no doubt made sure McGuire was slapped with a 19 game ban, placed in shackles and returned to Australia in order to stop our 8 game winning streak and sure the 5 peat remains on track. Clearly still not forgiven Dessie for knocking him out with his trademark headbutt in the cup in 1989 (or thereabouts). Massive conspiracy.

That is skewed by a lot of clubs just taking the bans for a while, no matter how daft they were. I think there are a few clubs now that are so sick of the whole mess that they'll appeal everything now as they have absolutely no respect for the panel anymore. It's going to be interesting to see how the MRP behave over the next few weeks. Are they going to dig their heels in and have more bumper weeks, or take the frustration on board and calm it down till the end of the season?

The language issue is all about PR. They feel they've got to be seen to be inclusive, so long bans for spicy language are an easy tick in a box.

Salford went down the St Helens route of appealing the failed appeal but that’s failed aswell Watkins still banned.