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.

Watson in his press conference criticising disciplinary panel charge on Greenwood too. Agar 2 weeks ago with Mellor.

I must admit I do get confused by the lack of consistency.

Was it Arona that got tipped on his shoulder in a tackle? Disciplinary I’m sure didn’t ban the player yet a push in the back 0.2 seconds after ball is released Is worthy of a ban.

Another way to look at it would it be fair to say a 1 match ban intimates that the offence was worthy of a sending off? Again were any of the incidents picked up last Friday fall into that category?

Great sense shown by MC on this issue. Perhaps he could obtain a round robin of signatures to his declaration from the CEOs of all the SL teams and present it together with their general thoughts of their policy making in general. Then all of them present it in person to those idiots at Red Hall. It really does require a tough stance from the Clubs before we don't have a game to follow.

There seems to be some fantasy that the RFL just come up with the guidance that the MRP follow at a whim and the poor clubs have no say in it.

Execs of the clubs had input into if not designed the disciplinary system.
Execs like Carter know who is on the panel.
There was and is game-wide input into rule and interpretation changes.

Well it clearly isn't working then, is it?

Keep digging, think you've totally misjudged the mood

Yes, but Watson or Agar know anything about the rules of the Game Trojan, well not as much as the Ghost.

The RFL in its current guise is a master at meaningless management speak. Words like "our partners" is typical of it when talking about other agencies they work with.

I can guarantee Rimmer will say something like, "I respect Mr Carter and his view, he is entitled to it, and we will take all these things on board moving forward as we discuss our future path." It will mean "we don't care what you say. We spent many meetings devising this. We used Powerpoint and everything, and even got the Family Circle biscuits in, not the usual Peak Freans rubbish."

A system is only as good as the rules you put in place within the system. Rimmer is a committee man to his boots. You can tell it from how he comes across. No vision. No vim. A dinosaur from the seventies in spirit.

The disciplinary rules should be general in their tone, not prescriptive. The more general, the more the panel has flexibility to rule on what was dangerous, reckless or deliberate, and take into account innocuous or incidental contact as part and parcel of a contact sport that is getting faster. The more prescriptive, as they are now, the more you put an incident into a tick-box with little flexibility.

It is partly the Ganson mentality of refereeing, where they think we turn up to watch a great example of rule enforcement. It ruins games. The rules are there simply to ensure fairness and safety, but fundamentally it's a sport. The likes of Rimmer and Ganson and are turning the sport into an exercise in rule-enforcement, which isn't the right way.