So who polices the police? Why do officials make good Judges? Are all magistrates ex policemen? No of course not they are respected members of the community who are deemed to see things from an impartial viewpoint.

Injustice? So you think it's OK to slam a young kid's head with considerable force into the ground do you? Head trauma is serious, and the potential for serious injury in a tackle which involves force to the head is great. In fact one of Saints' youngsters Jonny Lomax suffered a serious head injury at 14 as a result of playing rugby. It left him unconcious, vomiting and he had to undergo hours of open skull surgery to relieve the pressure building up on his brain, and he had to take a year out from playing rugby. It's a credit to Jonny that he's still playing, and that he's up there as one of the most promising young talents in the game today, but it just goes to show how serious a collision can be if it involves the head.

Shame you had nowt to say about a certain hooker punching someone so had they broke his eye socket...

Legless!!!

you miss the point! nobody here is saying that if an offence occurs, especially a head shot, then it should be dealt with
Read the threads! its about parity across the board with punishment of offences when they go up to the panel
Cunningham blatently punches a bloke in the face! its ON TV and was replayed several times
Deemed to be accidental by the board

1 rule for 1 team 1 rule for another
There are players out there that are known as nasty players and for some reason they get away with it

Again not defending any player who targets the head
But lets have a level field from the discip board if the offence was that bad why did he stay on the field?

What is this hang up people have with Cunningham at present? Are you all bored with Pryce or something? Sheesh. The green eyed monster does indeed exist!

It wasn't deemed to be accidental. Read the ruling. It was deemed to be reckless, but the RFL gave Cunningham [ibenefit of the doubt[/i when it came to hitting the eye socket (WHICH WAS NOT FRACTURED - STOSIC PLAYED LAST WEEKEND). In other words, the RFL simply opted to believe that Cunningham did not [iintend[/i to hit Stosic's eye socket. That was the only way in which the RFL let Cunningham off. Without intent, there was no ban. However, because he now has a formal caution, if he misbehaves again while the caution is live, he will get a ban.

I'm sure that would make all you executioners very happy.

The board may be inconsistent on occassion but it does not mean if someone slams a kid's head, or any player's head, into the floor they should just let them get away with it. Each individual case is judged on its own merit.

Those who are questioning the decison on Cunningham should look at other rulings on punches thrown this season. 'Man on man confrontation' this season (i.e. not a mass brawl, just two players involved) has been treated the same. Was Peacock banned for iit? No, warning letter. Peek banned? No, warning letter. Gilmour banned? No warning letter. Not that I agree with it, just that there is no special treatment going on, it's been dealt with the same all season.

Just as slamming people's heads into the ground, or spearing a player into the ground head first has always warranted a punishment.

saints fan!
nothing to do with that at all, its just the O'loughlin has not been playing much at moment so the head tackle technique that gets ignored by everybody from the refs to eddie and stevo is not such a talking point

Nobody is denying that a head shot on anyone should be punished and each case looked at in its own merit
Back to cunningham tho, he must have had to take a bit of a jump to hit Karl Temata oops nope it went unpunished
thats the only complaint!
An offence that deserves a 2 match ban should have resulted in at least a yellow card on the day

A 'Man on man confrontation' is different to a cheap shot by Cunningham.
IMHO.

Saints Fan,

It is not a hang up on Cunningham, it is about a system that is simply not working, when there is not consistency on rulings and judgements, No one says that Clubb was not in the wrong, but to compare the ruling on Cunningham's offence, then Clubb should also have been ruled the same. All we are saying is the Three Wise Men got it wrong with Cunningham and he should have received in my opinion 3 matches.

Cunningham seems to get a lot of benefit of the doubt decisions doesn't he? He must just be one of those lucky people.

Problem is that the panel's qualifications or otherwise don't appear to address the clear inconsistency in the way the disciplinary system operates. It's nothing new, there are two issues, one is the inconsistency of how similar offences are punished, the other is how some offences don't even get to that stage.

We need a much more open system of citation and graded punishments, with explanations not just for why some offences attract punishment, but for why the same/similar offences don't attract punishment. If a cheap shot punch isn't worth a ban then so be it, that's the precedent, if a headslam is worth 2 games then so be it, that's the precedent.

If the disciplinary system was forced to explain why they don't even consider some things, or are inconsistently lenient/harsh then I strongly suspect that inconsistency will start to fade out.

Never siad they did mate, GF called there qualifications into question, I understand these panels are made of two ex-officials who have served the game in a senior capacity and a barrister.

As for consistency, I'm with you there.