So why do we have 'on report' anyway if they look at every game? Seems a bit of a pointless exercise

Very much so. Maybe they think it will appease the fans in some way. It doesn't work - am I right in thinking it was an idea we got from Australia ?

I get that.. but unless the refs man up on certain players the game will always look corrupt.

Obviously you don't/didn't, or you wouldn't have said:

so why didn't they pick up on the bowen high Shot? Or the few in the saints game the week after? As john wilkin said into the refs ear " matty bowen" refs are poor & spineless..

They did pick up on the Bowen one they just decided not to ban him.

I'm not arguing that point, but the ref's lack of backbone has absolutely no bearing on the disciplinary process after the game, which you quite clearly stated it did.

But neither the ref or the panel dared to ban bowen! But if the ref reported it they would have given him a ban.

What planet are you on?

they wouln't have & didn't. The ref didn't place it on report, it still got looked at & no ban. Whether it was on report or not makes not one bit of difference.

I think it does..there's hitting someone high by accident & there's nearly taking another players head off resulting in them been stretchered off & is the penalty sufficient right for both types? Any high shot should be dealt with by a ref in the game its commited in imo.