The problem is that those who perhaps have it in their hands to do something about it , ie , the die hard RL fans and club owners , know that the constant parlous state of our game , caused by the administrators , is so bad that any real action , even just negative publicity created , would potentially destroy the game we love or at least put it even further behind the NRL , the RFU and lots of other pro sports. The press would love it.
How do we improve the disciplinary process , the refereeing standards , the TV Rights negotiations etc? Getting rid of what we have is only half of the problem. Where are the new administrators going to come from , the new competent referees and the more consistent disciplinary panel members? The most disappointing thing is the fact that those currently in those positions are smugly unaware of what everyone else thinks and/or don't care.

Pleased that the ban has been reduced but this is still an appalling decision. I looked at the judgement on the Amor sending off at Easter compared with this one. The Committee seemed to be trying to find excuses not to ban Amor - who had his arm raised even though the initial contact was with the ball - whereas they put the onus on Watts to get avoid contact with a player who was being propelled towards him. In the Amor case they even seem to acknowledge that front row forwards are in the thick of the action and are likely to have disciplinary problems but no such leeway is given to Watts. Appalling. Incompetent. Certainly lacking in objectivity. And probably biased.

The revised ban is still an appalling farce. But the 'independent' review panel was never going to fully overturn the decision of the first panel.

Its abysmal and blatant bias at all levels of the disciplinary. Been the same for years but now they aren't even trying to hide it. The only hope to get something done would be all the clubs getting together as one and demanding changes. But I doubt that will happen.

I'm just wondering how many times we have had a player up in front the disciplinary that Hallas has been on the panel as seems just about every time he sits on it.

it looks like Watts has copped a ban because of his 4 game ban at the start which IMO was severe and Gayle took no further part in the game. Anybody would think that the panel deem RL players superior humans and they are able to stop in a nano second and avoid a player dipping suddenly when committed to a tackle.
Unless they bring out a rule that says once a defending player has made contact with an attacking player they can not off load then how do they expect defending players to help affect a tackle? That is unfortunately the nature of the sport and these incidents happen in every single match.

As has been pointed out the similarity to Amor's & Roberts tackles to Watts and the different outcomes you have to askthe question of the RFL Disciplinary Panel.

Also as someone else pointed out re Ben Flower he had his ban reduced even with a shocking record because he hadn't been brought up before the panel for a similar incident. It was shocking tackle and how they reduced it it beyond me same as the SO'L one. Funny both play for Wigan must be a coincidence. Watts has hardly what can be called a poor record yet still cops another ban for something that should have been a penalty at most.

The RFL as has been said by another poster just carry on finding ways to make a pigs ear and set new lows for the way they manage this sport.

Can't see Wigan joining that particular motion lol it'd be like signing their own death warrant

Am I missing something about hallas ( genuine question ) . I know he made his name at the dobbins but I remember him playing very well in our championship winning side. He used to play well against k.r as well from what I remember so just wondering what's happened regarding constant remarks about being on the panel again

Am I missing something about hallas ( genuine question ) . I know he made his name at the dobbins but I remember him playing very well in our championship winning side. He used to play well against k.r as well from what I remember so just wondering what's happened regarding constant remarks about being on the panel again

It's still effectively 2 games as he missed most of sunday's

Still a terrible and corrupt decision but this is some better news

Glad you asked. I'm wondering this too.

If we have somebody with a clear provable bias, it needs raised.

How many games did Westwood get banned for his assault on Sutcliffe? Just curious how his ended up compared to Watts'.

4 I think but may be wrong

Just to highlight the total inconsistency of the whole process, I watched the Wakefield v Wigan match on easter Monday while listening to Hull's match away at Leigh when Gelling replicated Watt's dangerous throw against Catalans. I actually said to my son, "let's see if that gets a four match ban" as it was almost exactly the same offence. Gelling got 10 minutes in the bin just as Watts had done. You guessed it, Gelling received one match compared to Watts' 4 matches. Try telling anyone not visually impaired there is no bias from the RFL disciplinary committee.

Its a noble sentiment but unfortunately it won't work. The 2 most vocal critics of the disciplinary process have probably been Koukash and the dwarf from the East of the city and a fat lot of good it has done them. If anything it has made it worse for their clubs, especially Salford whose players always seem to get the maximum possible. Now I realise that there are other issues involved behind their complaints and Salford have employed some notoriously ill disciplined players but although it sounds defeatist its very difficult to beat the system. When Pearson first took over he was pretty vocal about the RFLs failings and got shot down fairly quickly so he's been much more circumspect since then.

I'm at a loss what to do. Speaking out doesn't work - if anything it can be negative. Saying nothing at all just allows the corrupt Wigan-Leeds axis to continue their institutionalised bias. I would agree that the more outrageous cases like the Watts one need highlighting as there is some pretty strong evidence on record and in the public domain and that's all we can probably do, keep chipping away.

Onto another issue from this case regarding Hallas on the panel I was a bit mystified by some of the complaints on this. I have no idea what his current feelings towards Hull FC are - either positive or negative - so unless someone has decent evidence on this I wouldn't read too much into it. However it does show a major failing of the system where ex players are sitting in judgement on individuals from their former clubs. No matter how impartial they may be they are wide open to conflict of interest accusations. A couple of weeks ago Hock was suspended for abusing a ref (again) and on that panel was former Leigh legend Neil Turley. Once again no evidence of any real wrongdoing but why the unnecessary conflict? Surely the RFL isn't so penny pinching that they can't put an extra ex player on call (as these are rotated anyway) so that when the former club connection arises that person can stand down for that case. Then again perhaps I'm making the ridiculous assumption that they are interested in a fair disciplinary process for all.

Agree with all of that - good reasoned post. In the cold light of day, when the emotion of the injustice to Wattsy has subsided a tad, then we as fans should keep this issue in the spotlight. When we see such blatant injustice (and even when we see it to other teams' players) we should highlight it on any forum we can - just like the Cas fans who have posted on this thread.