I reckon ex-pros/refs views on foul play are worth listening to, but try/no try - they're like everyone else, simply giving an opinion like you or me.

Yet the only thing deemed not good by the panel is the first hit on Sneyd that they say could/should have been a penalty. I don't think the officials even saw it

but the video ref would have

watts should never have been sent off. His arm wasn't out anywhere near enough to have been a deliberate attempt to injure and the only reason the injury occurred was due mcillorum's gash tackling technique. If he'd hit him where he should then he wouldn't have been anywhere near watts' elbow. It's likely cost us 2 points but we dust off and move on. Hopefully we'll get to play wigan again this year with a near fit side and 13 men on the pitch so we can show them yet again who are the better team

Agree with the above, it was a chippy game from the opening tackle with McIlorum trying to drive Watts' head into the pitch followed in the same set the late hit on Sneyd (which non of the officials saw) and so the tone was set and continued. The fact the neither Connor, Tomkins, McIlorum, Kelly etc have not been named by the disciplinary with SO'L only getting one and Wigans only one, yet Griffin, Houghton and Watts is a concern. Then again the week before the St's v Wigan game was pretty chippy and again nothing brought up.

What is annoying and the reason why the fans of this sport are growing restless with the officials & the disciplinary is the way they cover up poor decisions/officiating and their explanation a prime example of ineptitude.

“Player carrying ball in and begins to change direction and brace for impact from defender who is approaching player at speed from the inside. Elbow and forearm of player are not promoted. Contact made between head of opponent and front of arm of opponent. Sending Off Sufficient,” the RFL stated on their website

1. The disciplinary panel admit the elbow/arm was not promoted by Watts.
2. Defender approaches with speed and from the inside.
3. The panel go on to say contact is made between head of opponent & front of arm of opponent.

Yet they deem sending of suffcient??? WTF!!!! If they admit as they clearly have Watts never promoted the elbow or arm then what offence has he committed other than being Liam Watts? So what is a player supposed to do in the situation? stick their hands behind their backs or play with cushions strapped to their arms?

The RFL would have gained much more credibility and respect had they said the above statement but with a summary of 'Incorrect intervention by VR and incorrect on field decision, red card rescinded'

Otherwise what they have now said is any defending player ballsing up their tackling technique and getting a whack on the bonce is the attacking players fault and will be classed as a red card offence.

I understand the need to safeguard players but the number of penalties and red/yellow cards being given for accidental/unfortunate contact with opponents' heads is getting ridiculous now. For me, unless there is a deliberate attempt to injure or a completely reckless challenge then there needs to be a better balance of who is at fault

Great news and common sense prevails.

Just hope we don't have Hicks on Thursday.

Assault?

Seriously, even a penalty for that would have been one of the softest the sport had ever seen. He goes for the charge down and barely brushes Sneyd. There is probably a fingertip of contact and you want him charged, yet Watts' raised elbow makes full contact with MM's jaw and knocks him out and cry that the RFL are picking on you? You lot are quickly making yourselves a laughing stock here. Give your heads a wobble.

I've read it. They do not say the elbow was not raised, because of course it was. As anyone can see the arm moves away from Watts' body and into MM's jaw. The RFL decision was to charge Watts and to consider the sending off sufficient, which clearly supports the on field decision, you know, the opposite of proving it wrong. I understood this, it seems you did not, despite it not being joined up writing, as you say. Thanks for the laugh though. Perhaps next time you want to try and be a smart you'll make sure you understand what you're talking about before insinuating someone else doesn't. 3.884765625:5