If you believe that a hand on the back like Rocky Hampshire's was foul play and deserved a ban, then you're out to lunch and may I suggest you start watching ladies netball.

But the points you raise are redundant, when you say because Carter questions the bans he "Knows nothing about the laws of the game" but surely Sinfield and Agar do? So which one is it?

I`m pretty sure just about every coach in the league has questioned bans, sure some of them will be them throwing the teddy out of the cot because they will have players unavailable, but when you get people from other clubs starting to question other teams bans what do they have to gain from that? The Disciplinary panel is Inconsistency, that's clear for me to see, its clear for every coach in the league to see but yet you can`t see it?

This is the problem when you get people with no vision or business nous in charge of organisations. They make them bureaucratic. They turn it into an exercise in implementing whatever they have devised in endless meetings, attended by people whose only interest is in maintaining their employment, where everything is led by a flipchart. You could see it in the awkward body language between Rimmer and Elstone whenever Elstone was required to be with him. You can see it in the way Carney gets into Rimmer's ribs whenever he appears on Sky.

I get that Rimmer's brief is the broader game, not just the top flight, but the broader game is only benefited when there is a vibrant top flight. It needs running by people with vision and with experience of making money and making turnstiles click, not by people whose only desire is to tick compliance boxes.

Could well be the beginnings of a Super League breakaway. Hopefully, Carter has ensured Wakey is invited.

As for the broader point, it is ridiculous to sanction minor collisions in a brutal collision sport. Bans should be reserved for contact that is deliberately or recklessly aimed at the head in such a way that serious injury or concussion could follow, or where there is deliberate and dangerous contact with other areas of the body. You cannot aim to make the game faster and then sanction for minor collisions, as their risk is enhanced. There will be collisions in a collision sport.

The game isn't dead. But people like Rimmer will suck the life out of it.

Yup, for example they put together a panel which devised the current system. Michael Carter was one of the four members.

You are hilarious.

One minute having a go at Carter "for not knowing the rules" and then confirming that he helped devise the current system.
He would have been a very strange choice if his knowledge of the rules and systems is a poor as YOU seem to believe.
However, it's not the system that is necessarily at fault, it's the view of the current panel, who, this week, with very little to go through, have seemed to look very, very hard for something to justify this weeks wages.
If we were talking about a swinging arm or shoulder charge or something that caused injury, fair enough but, they're not even close.
If they follow the same pattern for all fixtures, EVERY side will have to default on their fixtures

Sorry I meant perhaps not as familiar as he might be with the on field rules which are leading to charges.

The off field stuff I'm sure he's all over those processes.

MC has stuck a stick in the hornets nest and not before time

I suggest you listen to the chris Chester pre Salford game interview, he explains why the club is unhappy with the review panel, and it’s not just the trinity club who are unhappy with that lot.

IF you are right and it would seem that probably you're not, and all future games and players are judged as they were in the Trinity / Saints game, there will be multiple players in every game getting pinged.
Has this been happening ? No
Is this level of scrutiny likely to continue ? No

The case for the defence rests

I don't think it's an inconsistency thing, though it does seem to be inconsistent with other sanctions. It's more that the individual incidents this week seem to be treated more heavily than normal.
I can't say I've questioned a Wakefield ban before now.

Ok Goat of 99 I don't, so do enlighten me as to their identity

I’ve got it in my head that Denis Betts is one but I’m probably wrong.

He listed them on page 2.....

"Paul Cullen, Nathan McAvoy, Paul Dixon, Phil Veivers & the RFL's compliance manager which I think is still Gavin Wild."

You got to wonder how a push in the back with no injury to the player, is worth one match ban , Yet a shot round the head that puts a player out for 4 to 6 week gets no case to answer too

IIRC Tanginoa got a 1 match ban for a very obvious and seemingly premeditated swinging arm in the face of Whitley when we played Catalan in the cup eailer this year. By that judgement are we suggesting Arundel's and Hampshire's 'misdemeanors' weere the equivalent? I'll be honest I can't even recall the incidents. The Matutia was a latish hit on Lino after kick a but nothing you don't see in every single match. Thaler would've seen it and dealt with it had it been an issue as there were plenty of other examples in the game of that.