ok go play on your own

A very sensible post, I have to agree. I think the issue is one panel set the initial charge where the player concerned is not present and is unable to defend themselves then a different panel decides the punishment in a hearing where the player can defend themselves, in some cases resulting in a lesser charge. The system was supposed to make it more transparent but instead is breeding more controversy.

I also believe this is made worse as some believe the bigger clubs can somehow pull their weight and influence in a way the smaller clubs can't.

As I posted on the VT in this case I think the 3 matches was reduced to 2 as he pleaded guilty which is consistent across the board then reduced by a further match as he was sent off which is also consistent with previous cases. I think ending up with 1 match is lenient, I also think the diciplinary are consistanly lenient and should be handing out larger bans in general.

I'm with you Jimmy on this one.
The stick that SOL gets from opposing fans at times is laughable however, in this instance it was a bad irrespective if he was stepped or whatever. I don't believe that SOL is a dirty player at all and consider him to be the best pound for pound tackler in the competition and has been for sometime.
I've watched the tackle a number of times and nothing will convince me that a one match ban is sufficient punishment for a pretty reckless tackle. What would the response be if Sam Tomkins was on the receiving end of a similar tackle?

Like yourself from a club point of view it is a far better result than I expected and I won't be complaining come the semi but the inconsistency of the review panel isn't good for the game.

I'm with you Jimmy on this one.
The stick that SOL gets from opposing fans at times is laughable however, in this instance it was a bad irrespective if he was stepped or whatever. I don't believe that SOL is a dirty player at all and consider him to be the best pound for pound tackler in the competition and has been for sometime.
I've watched the tackle a number of times and nothing will convince me that a one match ban is sufficient punishment for a pretty reckless tackle. What would the response be if Sam Tomkins was on the receiving end of a similar tackle?

Like yourself from a club point of view it is a far better result than I expected and I won't be complaining come the semi but the inconsistency of the review panel isn't good for the game.

glory hunter

When I woke up this morning and read a 1 game ban I couldn't believe it. Even as a Wigan fan I think 3 games would be the correct call and reduced to 2 with EGP. The disciplinary at the RFL are a joke though, look at the Saints reserve getting a 5 game ban for the same offence he received a 10 game ban for not long ago. The way the sport is run back home is a joke from top to bottom.

I think O'Loughlin has been fortunate and expected him to take the egp with a then two game ban. However just to clear something up those grades are guidelines only NOT hard rules. It's cost him £300 which he wouldn't have had to pay. Obviously they have taken his previous good record and the fact that he missed over half the game into consideration. It would probably help if the disciplinary added a paragraph in the sentencing guidelines to explain that these thing can be taken into consideration. If O'Loughlin is rested v Saints it'll be £300 wasted. www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/disciplinary

I think O'Loughlin has been fortunate and expected him to take the egp with a then two game ban. However just to clear something up those grades are guidelines only NOT hard rules. It's cost him £300 which he wouldn't have had to pay. Obviously they have taken his previous good record and the fact that he missed over half the game into consideration. It would probably help if the disciplinary added a paragraph in the sentencing guidelines to explain that these thing can be taken into consideration. If O'Loughlin is rested v Saints it'll be £300 wasted. www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/disciplinary

Stop pandering to the outraged idiots on here. One game is more than enough punishment. There have been similar tackles down the years that haven't even received a yellow card never mind a red and a ban.

Also, for a comparison, I'd like to bring up Ben Westwood's punch on Blake Green. That received a one match ban, now somebody please show me a thread that generated even half the replies this one has in 'outrage' over that. Oh wait, it was AGAINST Wigan so nobody cares.

SOL tackle deserved more than a one match ban and you know it.

There were stronger aggravating circumstances than mitigating in this case.

If it had been the other way round I would have loved to see the reaction on here (not that Annakin would have only got away with a 1 game ban mind)

He didn't show any of this, he didn't even have the decency to see if Annakin was ok straight after laying him out...

Yes, its all that Wigan bias up at red hall again, you dont need to tell us, we already know that we own the RFL. Rightly so really, the sport would be lost without us. And if the words of yourself "and you know it"

Ah yes, the one that broke Green's eye socket.

Broken Eye socket - 1 match
Concussion - 1 match

Sick of this, im boycotting the sport

I am not suggesting it is Wigan bias, but clearly the punishment in this instance does not fit the crime and if you think it does you are either (a) taking the pee or (b) were on the disciplinary panel that heard the case on Tuesday.