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.

I don't think it comes under welfare ? more like the Legal guy who joined us ?

Or are the RFL , like refs and pundits still presuming we are a Part time Championship team that has moved up to SL and therefore are cheating to survive

Chris Houston ran into ref v Warrington. No Ban No Fine well done RFL Hypocrits

Totally agreed Steve, Greg thought he was stopping a potential try (even though the kick went dead) and he shoved the ex marine (top bloke, but not a SL ref).
So Chris Houston has 2 charges from the Warrington game. Attempted tackle on Ashton Sims by pulling his 'pony tail' and then 'runs into the ref' when he didn't need to. So for the 'ref' challenge, grade D charge, pleads not guilty and is not banned/and only a caution for the Sims challenge.......no suspension. Greg 'pushed' the Ref thinking he was preventing him to 'save a try' 2 game ban !!!
Seriously this is pathetic, who can investigate the RFL disciplinary's decisions ? NOBODY. I know on the 'review panel' they have 2 ex players (one being Neil Turley sometimes) and 1 former referee.

Not disagreeing with anything you say, except McNally knocked the ball dead, after getting the ref out of the way. Had he not removed the ref, he probably wouldn't have been able to make the ball dead, and Salford may have scored.

Your knowledge is wrong, there are no former referees on the panel, the third member is from the legal profession.

OK Mr expert, what about the rest of my post.

If Houghton had not pleaded not guilty and presented his case to the panel he would have been banned for 4 games, if McNally had done the same he would not have been banned for 3 games.(IMHO) He admitted guilt and got the 3 reduced to 2.

One player took on the system and won the other didn't.

Everyone is surely missing the point here.

There was no hearing or case for the defence to be heard as Gregg McNally pleaded guilty early.

Houston defended his charge and the panel ruled in his favour as they would have done for McNally. Simple as that.

You beat me to it, by a matter of seconds.

100% Correct.

Chris Houston's steamroller obviously carried mitigating circumstances and deemed unpreventable/unavoidable collision. Neither deliberate or reckless. Gregg didn't have any mitigating circumstances he was deemed to have deliberate contact. The problem is the charge,two different scenarios but the same charge.There is no rule for moving a ref who is obstructing play other than deliberate contact. This is the stuff that needs to be addressed by the desiplinary review group that was set up. www.rugby-league.com/article/390 ... ed-by-rfl-

Chris Houston's steamroller obviously carried mitigating circumstances and deemed unpreventable/unavoidable collision. Neither deliberate or reckless. Gregg didn't have any mitigating circumstances he was deemed to have deliberate contact. The problem is the charge,two different scenarios but the same charge.There is no rule for moving a ref who is obstructing play other than deliberate contact. This is the stuff that needs to be addressed by the desiplinary review group that was set up. www.rugby-league.com/article/390 ... ed-by-rfl-

Do we/you know who advised Gregg to submit the Guilty plea? There is absolutely no disputing Gregg came into contact with the Ref! Don't forget Gregg couldn't shout; get out of the f@@k@@g way, because, he would have been binned for foul and abusive language as his colleague Gaz Hock had, the previous week!
The correct way to address the Referee is; excuse me sir, would you mind awfully moving! It seem to work for Sargent Wilson in Dads Army, didn't it