Yes because the referee has the benefit of the multiple camera angles that allowed you to see the incident doesn't he?

No they only s at the fools running the game.

Do you stick by this?
During Fridays game alone we had a VR when Shaul knocked the ball dead in Catalans touch in goal. Thaler was on the spot but we had 30 seconds to decide how to restart. We had a Hull kick off out on the full which required another 10-20 seconds for a VR to decide how to restart despite the touch judge saying it was on the full. Yet we have serious foul play which can't be viewed frame by frame. Over the years we have had tries go to a VR and take MINUTES to decide one way or the other.
Now think about this before you respond. If this isn't a cop out I don't know what is.

I am not getting emotional about this because it was a Hull player. I asked the refs for clarification as a RL fan who can't actually believe we have a VR acting on trivia yet serious incidents are not there to be adjudicated on.

Now if you feel the response was measured , honesty and reasonable then fair enough , but I will stick by what I and many others feel (all clubs I might add) that its a complete cop out.

I can't wait for Catalans to complain that the judiciary are too hard on them as that was a clear indication that things often go their way.

surprised it wasn't "penalty sufficient - contact initially made with the shoulder and then slid downwards"

anyway, joking aside, just a couple of points to raise on this...

Firstly I don't see how (as Cat's next opponents) their punishment is so great. OK they've lost Elima but he wil be ably replaced - it's a niggly inconvenience at best.

With regard to going to the screen/Ganson... if this was a Sunday afternoon game this isn't possible - so for fairness and consistency I can't see how they can do this.

To me the RFU get this right - it's either go whole hog on TV replays for EVERY match, or don't go there at all.

Some of the little infringements tries get disallowed for on a Friday night woudn't get noticed without TV, so to me it's an uneven playing field.

As a cas fan I'd rather play our tighter games off air.

The question that needs asking, IMO, is how referees come to the conclusion of putting a player on report.

Now, generally (albeit not the case with Elima this weekend) the referee penalises the infringement. So, surely at this point he has seen the incident. In which case, why put the offence up for review by the disciplinary panel, when he has the evidence to make a decision himself???

I can't see any other answer than that they are scared to, or under some influence not to, make a decision

I agree. And that's very worrying and needs addressing if true.

the question is, maybe it HAS been addressed?

Robbie Paul was on SLS this week and said that, at referees meetings they often clamp down or loosen the reg's which they apply on diffeerent laws/situations for them to be able to make informed judgments at the end of the year on any rule changes/tweaks they may implement.

Perhaps they are trying to use the report system to the fullest...