Currently it's a ban and yeah can understand the reasoning why but for me the length of the ban is the issue. The precedents SKD had just hit the leigh player with a high shot and potentially could have been injured. Mata'utia was similar action but the game context and the reaction of the player was different. For me it's a 1 match ban to reinforce the message don't touch and a directive to referees to use the green card powers to discourage the football style play acting.

Of course you can. That's the whole point of the argument. The DC needs to consider context and the whole situation of the incident and if they simply blanket ban Vaughan, then it's obvious they don't.

The committee absolutely SHOULD treat each incident individually, because every incident is different.

That's nonsense - what that actually means is you are saying it's up ot the player to decide whether he thinks a player is injured and the committee will then retrospectively judge whether he was right. That's a really bad approach to a rule like this.

Don't lift up a player after a tackle or you're likely to get a big ban. Nice and simple.

I agree this is really soft BTW but it's an important rule and there for a reason.

To show how ridiculous this charge is, its just been discussed on nrl 360(the week of their semi finals!). Suffice to say, they couldn't believe what they were watching. Aaron Woods looked genuinely gobsmacked. Is it any wonder the aussies see our game as a joke?

It isn't nonsense. This ruling encourages cheating. If we are really serious about having this rule, then to make it fair, then the cheat (Matautia in this case) should receive double the ban that player manhandling the player on the floor receives... I'm pretty sure we'd never see this charge ever appear again with the committee, because the cheats would quit with their time-wasting antics.

Considering all things being equal and the law of averages whys it always a Warrington player in controversy ?

Spell check working now?

Grammar/punctuation checker isn't though

It's ok, his mum will be giving him his bath soon, when he's finished his homework of course.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... ul-vaughan

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... ul-vaughan

Assume they will appeal seeing as he pleaded not guilty.

What a farce

There are posts on NRL sites and they think it’s a joke. The people who run the NRL don’t want anything to do with internationals or even the world club challenge, things like this only make it more laughable. Yes before the smarts come on spouting it’s the rules just like the player is within 10 yards nonsense but whatever happened to common sense.

this is the silliest charge i have ever seen.

Snowflakes have finally taken over.