that idea makes sense to me!why should wigan benifet for a bad decisions made against another team!like you say,their will be complications but i think this idea would make it fairer!

Shocked by these citations to be honest, but perhaps I shouldn't be given the opposition. Both were seen by the on field officials and neither warranted even a penalty. With Laffanchi's supposed spear tackle they were shown several replays of it while the Wire player was treated and the video ref had plenty of opportunity to have a word in his ear, but neither thought anything of it.

Are you implying that the RFL are biased towards Warrington?

I think it is hard to argue with the spear tackle incident. As I mentioned above, one man making the tackle should be in full control. Why Thaler didn't even blow for the penalty I dont know.

As for the other incident, I don't recall this. Wellens does need to cut back on his temper though.

You're in shock? As in proper shock? You need some perspective Sadders.

--The Rugby Football League's match-review panel cited the pair with grade B offences, which carry a ban of one or two matches. They have until 11am on Tuesday to enter early guilty pleas.-- cant argue with that

Yup, proper shock. Sheet white, eyeballs exposed, blabbering incoherently, having nightmare flashbacks, the lot.

Good point well made!

Didn't see Laffranchi's tackle on the night but have watched it back since, and boy did we get lucky with that on the night. On Wellens' brain fart on the "bum banger" Lee Briers (couldn't resist) that should have been a minimum of a penalty and again we got lucky to get away with it on the night.

I think though that the officials should be cited for poor performances (especially missing glaringly obvious penalties such as Wellens' and Laffranchi's incidents on Friday).

Referees are there to enforce the laws of the game, but sadly, are failing miserably at it at the moment. It doesn't help that some of the rule changes over the last few years are left open to "interpretation"... Each new rule or amendment to a rule should be explained properly so that refereeing is consistent and less open to interpretation.

If the ref had seen them it would have only meant 2 extra tackles.

just copied this from the saints site---Case Number ON/215/12
Name Paul Wellens
Club St Helens
Shirt Number 1
Match Warrington v St Helens
Competition Super League
Date 30/03/12
Incident considered Dangerous tackle in 7th minute
Decision Charge
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Law: 15.1(d) Detail: Dangerous tackle Grade: B MRP - Referred to tribunal
Range of Recommended Sanctions in relation to Charged Grade* 1-2 matches

Case Number ON/217/12
Name Anthony Laffranchi
Club St Helens
Shirt Number 14
Match Warrington v St Helens
Competition Super League
Date 30/03/12
Incident considered Dangerous tackle in 59th minute.
Decision Unknown
Details of Charge / Reason for NF Law 15.1(d) Detail: Places in a dangerous position and reaches the ground in a dangerous position Grade: B MRP - Referred to tribunal
Range of Recommended Sanctions in relation to Charged Grade* 1-2 matches----that about sums it up i think

Really suprised at these 2 being cited as i was under the impression that mr wellens and mr wilkin where trying to ref the game???

This truly highlights Silverwood's inability to referee a game. I know it is old news but Luaki was put on report twice when, it appears that, it wasn't even necessary for the ref to do it as this example proves the whole game is looked at, even if there wasn't even a penalty given.

On report and a couple of refs in super league need to be scrapped.

I'd forgot about this (haven't had a chance/wanted to watch the game back yet), couldn't believe it wasn't a penalty at the time. We'd have still done nothing with it though.