Agreed. If it's that bad a tackle it wouldn't take ten minutes for the VR to see.

Easy Mr Ganson and all the rest of the muppet officials need to grow a pair

You don't need any of that crap. Ablett should have been sent off - period. If the referee hasn't seen it then the linesmen should have seen it. If they have both missed it then the Video Referee should have had a word in Ganson's ear. Bottom line - he should have been sent off.

My argument is that he saw enough of the tackle to put it on report, but didn't have the bottle (or desire) to send him off. And people prattle on that he is the best referee in the league. The man is an idiot & the conspiracist inside of me says he is fuelled by blind, ardent hatred of Wigan RL when he officiates our games. It was an atrocious tackle and an even more atrocious decision to leave him on the field. In a play off/grand final that sort of cataclysmic error could cost us the league. Simple as that.

Of course you would

I think Rogues idea is a very good one and would pacify fans who see bad decisions affecting the outcome of the game. Or put another way, Wigan get no advantage from Ablett being banned for the next 3 games.

The one modification I would make to Rogues suggestion is that if the Match Commisioner/video ref reviews the evidence and doesnt see it worthy of a sin binning he should be able to instruct the ref to allow the sin binned player back on the pitch immediately. This would then minimise players being penalised unfairly.

the last bit of your post would be far too close to admitting the ref had made a mistake which would never happen (see Coley's sin bin sufficient ruling as a recent example)

Really wouldn't be surprised if Ablett had his ban reduced on appeal.

of course he will get it reduced he plays for LEEDS.

They should just scrap the on report rule fir me.

If the ref has seen it and deemed it a penalty then he should have the balls to make a call. Likewise the touchie should have the authority to send someone off.

All games are reviewd anyway so there's no need for it imo

Nice to hear your idea discussed in the last few minutes on GMR last night ROgues... I thought they were going to blow a gasket at the injustice of an 'innocent' man being binned!!

Perhaps the problem is that "sending off" is *usually* too harsh a punishment?

How about this?

Jones gets red carded and leaves the field for the duration of the match.
After 10 minutes, Smith substitues Jones in the normal way.
After the match, Jones is automatically summoned to the RFL for further punishment.

So it acts like a Yellow Card but the offending player can play no further part in that match.

Thoughts?

Fredtosspot has it spot on there.

He was told not to challenge therefore i cannot understand how ganson can say he didnt see enough of the challenge if he had the foresight to tell ablett not to challenge.

Im not comfortable with this - A player goes to the bin for a foul theyve committed which in the refs mind he is certain merits such a punishment or like Andy Coley did being the next offender after a warning by the ref to the captain that the team are giving away too many pens.

Putting something on report doesnt/ shouldnt imply guilt - plenty of items referred dont see any further action taken - so to put a player in the bin whilst a conflab goes on in the stand is punishing a team during a game where a ref is uncertain of the degree of foul play or even if any has taken place

Sorry to sound like a lawyer and i can see how the Ablett tackle got people thinking about the video ref - but the only alternative is back to the pre report days of the early 90s .

What about leaving him on the field then but still having the "conflab" on whether to send him off? Personally I can't get over that Phil Bentham clearly (he was heard on the Sky coverage) got involved to send Andy Coley off at Catalans but didn't get involved this time. Why didn't he? He can't have looked at that and deemed it ok surely when he advised the Coley one to be a red card?