Quote ="Clearwing"Consistency in the rules is one thing but that means little if the respective penalties or, more importantly, their effects aren't. Wakey's 4 point penalty meant absolutely nothing. They could have been docked one thousand points and it would have made virtually no difference (if that toothless ruling wasn't a way of making the game a laughing stock, I don't know what is). The playing field has changed in a big way since then though and it should be factored in IMO.'"
I understand what you are saying, but if the RFL wanted there to be a difference in the "impact" of a punishment between a season where there was no Relegation and one where there is Relegation, then they should have changed the rules to reflect this. They didn't, meaning that we are left with the rules that were in place for the precedent currently set, and as such that precedent has to be followed.
If I were a Wakefield Director, I would be watching this very closely, and should there be no (or should that be not equal?) points deduction for Bradford, I would be instructing my Solicitors to write to the RFL and advise them to expect legal proceedings should Bradford "survive" and Wakefield "go down" with a difference of less than the number of points penalty that Wakefield incurred under the exact same set of rules.
The rules are in place now (whether we agree with them or not is irrelevant), and have to be followed, otherwise it's a very clear case of double standards by the RFL.
