Nice of the RFL to reply to my email.

Dear RFL

I wonder if you could explain how Keith Mason of the Huddersfield Giants was only given a fine from his actions in the Wigan game when Louie McCarthy-Scarsbrook was given a ban for similar actions against Catalans Dragons in Perpignan this year. On a similar note there seem to have been several brawls this season with no suspensions whereas in the Catalans v Quins game last year as well as the aforementioned player 2 others received bans for involvement in a brawl.

I would welcome your comments on the consistency (or lack of) shown.

Regards

Thank you for your email.

Firstly, the Match Review Panel thought both matters were similar, and referred them to the Tribunal with the same grading and charge. However the Tribunal believed that Mason did not throw a punch, but tackled his opponent. I think that was the major difference between the two cases,

Man to man (one on one) confrontations that are dealt with appropriately by the referee (i.e. sin binning) are unlikely to be referred to the Tribunal. However if a player is repeatedly involved in these sorts of incidents, then an incident will be referred to the Panel. Likewise if a player runs into an incident and escalates the situation, uses an elbow, head butt, knee, stamp or king hit on another player during an incident, hits someone who is defenceless, uses unnecessary violence etc then the incident is likely to be referred. There have been a number of Cautions given to players for fighting this season, which is in effect a finding of guilt without appearing at the Tribunal and the punching charge is on the player’s disciplinary record

The Match Review Panel and Operational Rules Tribunal are completely independent, and no club is above the rules or receives preferential treatment. You may consider there is an element of inconsistency in the operation of the disciplinary system, however the Match Review Panel and Tribunal are asked to judge each case on its merits, and there will always be differing opinions on whether a player has a case to answer for misconduct, whether the misconduct is worthy of referral to a Tribunal, and whether the Tribunal considers the offence constitutes misconduct. The assessment of misconduct involves the Panel and Tribunal forming an opinion and exercising judgement. You may disagree with the opinion and judgment formed by the Panel/Tribunal, but rest assured there is no favouritism toward any club. Indeed all 14 clubs usually say to me that their club is being harshly treated, which would seem to indicate that the Panel and Tribunal are acting without any favouritism.

Thank you again for your email.

Exactly the same response - word for word that I received for my email.

Good morning

I wonder if you can explain something to me that I do not fully understand. Last season Quins had a number of players disciplined very heavily for fighting on the pitch which resulted in bans and fines. This season so far I have seen disruption at Leeds v Saints and no-one put on report or the offences even looked at. Also there was trouble at the Wigan game. If you read the incident report you will see the Wigan game was almost an identikit to the Quins v Cats game yet Mason was only fined and no other team members received bans or fines. I really struggle sometimes with the decisions made. Can you explain and help me understand why there is such a massive difference when punishments are handed out. Please understand I am not against discipline. I think that is what makes RL such a great game, respect is a wonderful thing which I wish was upheld in more sports but I really struggle at times to understand such massive differences for the identical offences.

Kind regards
Alison Pollard

reply was exactly the same as PP

Consistent at least, unlike the referee or the Panel.................

Why would you expect a different reply to the same question?

Because we didn't know each other had written and it's the RFL so anything could happen

Cut and Paste - marvelous

They are consistant, thats what they should be.

Its great that they bothered to return an answer for your question, and its even better that they have consistant answers.