Bit of a cop-out that one; there were clear grounds for issuing a team warning - two of the six infringements were by the same player, for the same offence! (Larroyer - high tackle.)

I'm not sure what they did to incur Mr Bentham's largesse, but I've certainly seen teams put on warning for less.

It strikes me that there's too much room for interpretation in this rule; I'm not against it per se, but it needs to be tightened up in terms of how many infringements it takes to be put on warning and how long it lasts or at least, a signal to say that it's expired; a signal that says pretty much what Mr Bentham thought he saw on Saturday - an improvement in discipline.

seems a reasonable common sense approach to me

I hate the team warning and if it's being quietly dropped then fine by me - far to open to interpretation.

At the start of the season pretty much every match had a player sin binned after one of those warnings. Hardly happens anymore and we are only in May.

Much like the 'incorrect play the ball,' which was obsessively penalised for the first few games of the season and, as I predicted, is now routinely ignored.

I'm all for continuous improvement, but you lose credibility if you have a blitz on your latest bugbear issue, then forget about it and allow the status quo to return; improvement is about creating a [inew[/i status quo!

Which was exactly my point! Shouldnt be surprised though, they do this every season. Start with a new idea or clampdown and after four matches it has been forgotten about!!

The 'shoulder charge' offence seems to be losing some of it's fizz for getting penalised.

In other amazing #asktheref news

Well if the Quo can be successful using 4 cords for so long there is hope for us yet!(sorry)

Why don't they take the radical step of the ref speaking to both teams before the game and "warning" them that any persistent infringements will result in a sin-binning??
Why let them get away with it for 10 minutes then warn them?
Just warn them beforehand and then act.

I think the warning signal is simply a crowd pleasing attempt and little more. Teams infringe and the referee speaks to them and there comes a time where he has a word with the captain and says that the next infringment will result in a sin binning. The team warning signal is just a way of conveying that to the crowd and appeasing those who have noticed the persistent infringements and are shouting at the referee to sin bin someone.

I agree, but they shouldn't have to warn the captain that the next infringement will incur a team warning. They should just invoke the team warning at that point.

I think the team warning is not just about the crowd - it's also about the players; how often in the past did you see a ref call out the captain and tell him to 'have a word' with his players, only for the captain to run back into the line shaking his head and do no such thing?

I quite like the concept - they just need to tweak the execution to make it work properly.

I asked a question last week and didn't get answered

"with regard to the 'warning' rule for 2013, the frequency of the implication of tis seems to have decresed since the start of the season - do you consider this to be through an improvement in discipline, or has a level of leniency been introduced"