I've had this conversation before about EGP's,apparently you either use them or lose them.You can't carry them over.

You don't plead guilty unless you feel you have a reasonable chance of contesting the charge. Seems odd, even getting it down to a 1 match ban would've helped.

I have since seen the footage and Jack Smith clearly checked back into McNally's path. The EGP is bizarre.

McNally admitting guilt is amazing, he has been poorly advised. This incident should have been used to make the RFL change their rules by ridiculing them in as many ways possible. This can't now happen.

Rather than receiving an on field apology from the referree, Gregg gets a two match ban.
The lunatics are without any doubt now running the RFL Asylum and should plead guilty to turning the sport into a complete laughing stock.

Have we had a fair rap from the disciplinary this season?
So the Refs inept positioning is ok by the RFL?

No.
Seemingly.

The RFL didn't come to this conclusion, McNally did it for them when he has a brain fart and pleaded guilty.

Probably because he would have got three matches if he'd contested the charge.

I don't think the ref was badly positioned. However, I'm certain that he backed into McNally's path - he started a yard in front of the tryline, and then moved backwards, without checking, straight into McNally's path, behind the tryline. What would the outcome have been, had McNally not pushed out, but had let the ref reverse into him? Presumably the same charge, plus 6 points for Salford!!

Your most likely correct Alan, i thought i had read the outcome of a discipline hearing where a player had pleaded not guilty to deliberate contact or pushing and whaddya know the panel disagreed and the player was much worse off than if he had pleaded guilty (both length of ban and amount of fine).

Chris Houghton (sp?) was charged with a Grade 4 contact with Bentham, unlike McNally he contested the charge and was found not guilty.

Now the RFL really are having a laugh at our expense - Chris Houston of Widnes up on a Grade D charge of Contact with a Match Official vs Warrington.
Houston cleaned referee Bentham out by running a defensive line that he could have easily altered to avoid the contact.
He is up for 3 to 5 games and gets off - not guilty.
Good luck to him and Widnes but how on earth Gregg gets panned for his alledged offence is now much further beyond my clearly limited comprehension than ever.

So Gregg McNally is to blame for admitting pushing the Ref ? I saw Chris Houston push Phil Bentham in the back, he ran straight at him deliberately and, all widnes fans were expecting him to get five or six games based on what former player Gareth Hock received! I know your one who doesn't think we are unfairly treated down at the RFL, have a look what Chris Houston did and, who to then, compare that to Jamie Actons four game ban last season for pushing Salford player Flanagan in the back!
Incidently, Kyle Amor got sending off sufficient for his high shot against Wigan!!! Cant wait for Jamie to do a Ferris or Westwood or even Amor any guesses for the outcome ?

The thing is Reffy you would think that the RFL would look at the video ahead of the hearing and should be able to decide if there is a case to answer. Even a tiny amount of common sense should have told them that there should be no case to answer because of Smith's poor position in the middle of active play and that the collision with him was not malicious. He was in the way, obstructing defending Leigh players trying to either pick up the ball or clear it out of play. If they hadn't done this then Salford would probably have scored.
This EGP system is becoming like the American judicial system were they tell a Defendant he will get 10 years if they plead guilty to a charge or 50 years if they are found guilty following a trial. It appears that Gregg either believed or has been convinced by someone that he was guilty which is crazy in this instance. In Gregg's case he would have had plenty of mitigation for any contact with Smith. He has been poorly advised here, particularly in light of the verdict re Chris Houston. He should have contested it.

Don't know to be honest. Presumably he didn't make his own way to the Disciplinary without proper legal or other professional representation. If he did then he has made a costly mistake. The bottom line is that he has copped a two match ban for nowt.
Maybe the club don't want to make waves with the RFL 'establishment' and are adopting a put up and shut up approach to any charges against our players. I can't think of any charges to date this season that have resulted in a not guilty verdict.
The conclusion therefore is that our players were guilty as charged, or maybe we are losing the argument, or maybe we are offering no argument at all. In the McNally case, and based on what I saw in front of me, and which is supported by other supporters who saw the same incident, he should not have been charged and should not have been found guilty of improper contact with Jack Smith. In a previous post by your good self regarding the same incident, I think I am correct in stating that you also believed he wouldn't have been cited. Makes you think doesn't it? Are our players getting good advice or proper representation all the time, and is the Club fully assessing each allegation made. I hope so.