This chicken wing thing is ridiculous.

Why did Maurie get banned for one game straight up with no warning letter?

I think the one match ban is correct (or even more) but it needs to be implemented for every player who is caught chicken winging.

It's too inconsistant, Maurie got a match ban but Diskin didn't for his chicken wing on Wheeler the other week.

This is the RFL your on about, the RFL disciplinary, the panel of plebs who say "1 match ban sir" and then the next week say "nothign to answer for sir" for the very same incident... never say the RFL judges are ridiculous, they are jsut misunderstood and a little jellified in the brain.

I noticed and remarked at the time about the knee in Ade's face. Diskin and Sinfield are one of the main culprits of going into the tackle with their knees though.

dirty leeds get away with it again

At least Burgess is still facing a ban.

I'm afraid I have to agree, shouldn't be warning letters, if it's a chicken wing tackle it's a one match ban. End of.

Pryce got a way with a blatant pull back on Gibson however.

I am sure I read the other week that the panel consists of 6 persons. Three sit one week and three the next. If that is the case then that is were the inconsistances lie. I suppose it depends whose on the panel for the particular week if you are up on a charge.

Yes he did.

It wasnt blatant, I only noticed it on the TV replay

I thought that when I saw it. Not even put on report by the ref. I'd love to know how many matches are missed by players banned for fouls that don't get sent off for, surely sending off is a much better deterrent and much fairer to the team fouled against than a ban when they can just rotate another player in to replace him.

It was a high shot for which he was penalised. I have seen worse not even referred to the disciplinary. It was never a sending off.

Peacock was also involved in the tackle leaving Burgess little to get hold of. Clumsy rather than malicious.

If Burgess cops a ban then the disciplinary panel then I'd be very suprised, unless they decide to make an example of one of Leeds young players.

Can't belive this has gone unmentioned. Ade even turned round & looked at the freak..
Surely he's due for retiring soon

...And Leeds should have been down to 12 when there was a professional fool (holding down after a break) on Meli.

..And as the Leed fan in front of me quite rightly pointed out, Saints failed to play the ball with the foot on a number of occasions.



...But on the other hand Leeds were guilty of feeding at the scrum too

This has to be taken out of the game but until players get punished it will stay in the game theres no place for it.

Nah, Ade is still young and got plenty RL in him. As for Senior, must say he is still turning in the performances even at almost 50 and 5 wives down the line.

Anybody heard how Burgess got on with his call up by the beak.

1 match ban.

it'll take more than that to help bradford

They must have run out of warning letters.Shame really as it was more clumsy than malicious.There have been quite a few "tackles" more deserving of a ban than the Burgess one.

Regarding chicken wings.....

I've heard the RFL have developed and are to introduce a network of sensors in every player's shirt, so the disciplinary can decide accurately the amount of pressure exerted, and therefore who to ban and who to write love letters to.

I received a reply from Blake Solly (Compliance Manager, RFL) regarding the Carl Ablett trip and inconsistency with the chicken wing tackles. Because it's in the interest of the rugby league public I will post it here. Note: I didn't actually imply there was any favouritism occurring so not sure why this is mentioned in the email. Quote ..... ...... Thank you for your email. The Carl Ablett tackle looked like a trip at first instance, but on detailed review it is clear that Ablett’s first contact with Meli is with his left arm, before contact is made between Ablett’s left leg and Meli’s body. The position with tripping is that where a person makes first contact with their hand or shoulder, they are then entitled to use their leg or other part of their body to complete the tackle (like in a Cumberland throw tackle). Whilst Ablett’s attempt to tackle Gardner with his arms was not particularly effective, and it was the collision between his leg and Meli that completed the tackle, it was a legitimate challenge under the Laws of the Game. Whilst the Senior, Diskin and Fa'asavlu incidents all relate to the same type of tackle technique, the Panel or Tribunal believed there were differences in the degree of pressure or the technique used by the player involved. The Match Review Panel considered the Fa'asavlu incident was worthy of charge, and he was found guilty of an undue pressure tackle. As far as the Diskin incident is concerned, the Match Review Panel thought that it was also serious enough to refer to the Tribunal, but it was the Tribunal that deemed him Not Guilty. The Match Review Panel did not believe the Senior tackle was as bad as the Diskin or Fa'asvalu tackle, and on that basis thought a warning letter was sufficient. The Match Review Panel and Operational Rules Tribunal are completely independent, and no club is above the rules or receives preferential treatment. You may consider there is an element of inconsistency in the operation of the disciplinary system, however the Match Review Panel and Tribunal are asked to judge each case on its merits, and there will always be differing opinions on whether a player has a case to answer for misconduct, whether the misconduct is worthy of referral to a Tribunal, and whether the Tribunal considers the offence constitutes misconduct. The assessment of misconduct involves the Panel and Tribunal forming an opinion and exercising judgement. You may disagree with the opinion and judgment formed by the Panel/Tribunal, but rest assured there is no favouritism toward any club. Indeed all 14 clubs usually say to me that their club is being harshly treated, which would seem to indicate that the Panel and Tribunal are acting without any favouritism. Thank you again for your email. Regards Blake Solly Compliance Manager Legal RFL Red Hall, Red Hall Lane, Leeds, LS17 8NB www.therfl.co.uk'"

I received a reply from Blake Solly (Compliance Manager, RFL) regarding the Carl Ablett trip and inconsistency with the chicken wing tackles. Because it's in the interest of the rugby league public I will post it here. Note: I didn't actually imply there was any favouritism occurring so not sure why this is mentioned in the email. Quote ..... ...... Thank you for your email. The Carl Ablett tackle looked like a trip at first instance, but on detailed review it is clear that Ablett’s first contact with Meli is with his left arm, before contact is made between Ablett’s left leg and Meli’s body. The position with tripping is that where a person makes first contact with their hand or shoulder, they are then entitled to use their leg or other part of their body to complete the tackle (like in a Cumberland throw tackle). Whilst Ablett’s attempt to tackle Gardner with his arms was not particularly effective, and it was the collision between his leg and Meli that completed the tackle, it was a legitimate challenge under the Laws of the Game. Whilst the Senior, Diskin and Fa'asavlu incidents all relate to the same type of tackle technique, the Panel or Tribunal believed there were differences in the degree of pressure or the technique used by the player involved. The Match Review Panel considered the Fa'asavlu incident was worthy of charge, and he was found guilty of an undue pressure tackle. As far as the Diskin incident is concerned, the Match Review Panel thought that it was also serious enough to refer to the Tribunal, but it was the Tribunal that deemed him Not Guilty. The Match Review Panel did not believe the Senior tackle was as bad as the Diskin or Fa'asvalu tackle, and on that basis thought a warning letter was sufficient. The Match Review Panel and Operational Rules Tribunal are completely independent, and no club is above the rules or receives preferential treatment. You may consider there is an element of inconsistency in the operation of the disciplinary system, however the Match Review Panel and Tribunal are asked to judge each case on its merits, and there will always be differing opinions on whether a player has a case to answer for misconduct, whether the misconduct is worthy of referral to a Tribunal, and whether the Tribunal considers the offence constitutes misconduct. The assessment of misconduct involves the Panel and Tribunal forming an opinion and exercising judgement. You may disagree with the opinion and judgment formed by the Panel/Tribunal, but rest assured there is no favouritism toward any club. Indeed all 14 clubs usually say to me that their club is being harshly treated, which would seem to indicate that the Panel and Tribunal are acting without any favouritism. Thank you again for your email. Regards Blake Solly Compliance Manager Legal RFL Red Hall, Red Hall Lane, Leeds, LS17 8NB www.therfl.co.uk'"

You've done well to get a reply.

I emailed the RFL and have recieved nothing, not even a notification.

I think maybe someone needs to get some of the people who represent the panel, in a chicken wing tackle, and see how much they like it.