I am still in 2 minds about it. I can see what they are trying to do but its pretty ugly at the moment.
I think ultimately its about tackle technique and that isn't going to change overnight so we are going to continue to see the same cards and bans for awhile yet if they continue with this approach.

If only abit of common sense was applied.

The refs are too letter to the law, each incident is different you could have a blatant high tackle with nasty intent fair enough red/yellow card and a subsequent ban, no arguments

But there has got to be scope for common sense applied, if a tackle situation changes and a player slips into somebody, with the tackler not being able to change his stance, then this has to be recognised, especially after watching a replay 3 or 4 times, surely common sense comes Into play.

The panel should know better absolutely no excuses, it's not fit for purpose

If Mau is fit i hope the club rotate him sensibly and dont try and have him on the field for 80 mins.

Think the club should appeal this one.
The only difference is Prior went in as the second tackler but that shouldnt make a difference to the length of a ban.
I wonder if we will see Evans first team appearances into double figures this season?

Don't think an appeal would be wise or successful. Under the current rules if you have had a ban within the last year you automatically get the higher end of the grade. Given Evans' ban carried over into SL it follows that he has 'form' in the last year so he automatically gets 2 whereas Prior presumably doesn't and so gets the lower end.

Lets be honest the part of your post I've highlighted in bold is for me the biggest issue in that the RFL, Officials and the disciplinary panel seem devoid of any sense, common or otherwise.
Its seems from the interview with Moorhouse its agenda she is pushing through regardless of any collateral damage these heavy handed and ill thought out decisions are having on the game. There is an element of risk in any sport especially one that is founded on physical contact like RL. For Moorhouse to tell two ex players that played at a high level that the examples they used (in relation the points they raised) were not very good ones then said that Netball is a better example to use pretty much sums up all that is wrong within the organisation ruining sorry running the game.

How do they get these jobs?

What qualifys them, just incompetence at the top of the game

The issue is that the players are employees of the clubs.

It is clear that being beaten about the head causes long term brain injuries.

We can probably expect legal cases resulting in very large amounts of compensation being paid to damaged ex players.

If the games authorities and clubs are not seen to be taking very serious efforts to prevent head injuries then the game will find it impossible to get insured.

This would mean that the professional game simply stops.

No professional games, no clubs. All gone.

Hence they have no choice other than to crack down on contact with the head - accidental or deliberate contact does not change the nature of the damage.

Cotton wool brigade

If Lane is fit. I'd start Manu on the bench.

As you say ideally he won't play the full 80

Very well summed up. Hodgeson said we need insurance to play and that's the end of it. The discussion should be where do we go now. It's not clear what the sport will look like in a few years once the rules are settled on and the players get used to them. I'd imagine there will be a shed load more offloads for starters. Will it destroy the game? I'll still be going. What else am I gonna do with my time?

How do they get insurance for UFC, Boxing, MMA etc when that is a sport that is about hitting the head, whereas typically RL is accidental contact