The same way they can declare a try or disallow one. The practice of a referee not being able to look on the big screen behind him for confirmation of an incident is stupid. If there is a deliberate intent to injure, then it will be clear. If unclear, THEN refer to the judiciary.

After all, thats exactly what the RFL do, they just take 3 days to do it!

Watching Mika's clenched fist attack to the head on the screen would have given no option but to red card.

Agreed. 'On-report' is a pile of cack.

I was on about the system whereby a ban comes into effect from the time the punishment is given, regardless of the players finess, rather than coming into effect once the player is back fit.

Read what I was responding to.

The judiciary are there to judge the severity of the challenge, not the referee. The rules state that it's a red card if; Careless, Reckless or Intended contact with the head was made. In this case it was - red card.

Should the ref be able to consult the video ref or screen? - yes IMO, but they're not there to judge whether it was intended or how severe it was, that's the job of the judiciary who can take their time in reviewing it and making a decision.

In this case, contact with the head was obviously made, Silverwood should have sent him off.

We lost a player on Monday night, limiting our selections to 3 substitutes. Mika stayed on the pitch (OK, so karma got him with a hamstring tear) and we were worse off for it. The other 16 players had to perform for longer. The video-screen would be used solely to see if a red card or sin-bin were called for.

The RFL use the exact same video evidence to find guilt anyway THEN they offer a punishment.

The ref doesn't need to 'find guilt', they need to see whether contact with the head was made and falls into one or more of the three categories I mentioned. Silverwood made the wrong decision.

IMO it was a red card and the ref should utilise the screen/4th ref. Again, that was not the point I was making originally that you quoted.

I know his fist was clenched but I think contact with the head was accidental (not saying that should mean no sending off). He's a good, fair, hard player, not a dirty player imo.

Correct.

Look upon the ref as a copper, he's there simply to nick people. It's then up to the courts to decide the level of punishment

If refs sent off every player who carelessley or recklessley made contact with an opponents head, we'd be playing 7 a side most weeks

When I started watching RL in the 80s there [iseemed[/i to be more sendings off than there are now. (I don't have any statistical evidence for this, its just my recollection).

Then when they introduced the sin bin the number of sendings off seemed to decrease.

Now we don't even get many sin binnings and when we do its for offences such as persistent offside.

The "on report" system and the MRP are just a cop out for the refs.

If posters think back Sam Moa Wasn't going to be sent off .Only when somebody (video Ref ) had a word in the ref's ear then he was sent off .Even Steve o AND Eddie were surprised he got a red card The Rovers player when in with a swinging arm and a clenched fist

1 match ban, disgrace.

How long did Moa get?

1 match (iirc), and he should have got no case to anwer.

Dont think Mika should have been banned (or Moa) IMO.