Grix - throws 4 punches at Ellis = just a penalty
Brough - throws a punch = yellow card
Whiting - doesnt throw a punch = yellow card

I dont understand the refereeing in this competition

I can understand why the ref sinbinned both Brough and Whiting. He won't have seen the petulant kick by Brough into Whiting on the floor (should see a ban for that) and so all he's seen is Whiting effectively chase after Brough.

The Grix one was early in the game when tensions weren't quite as high and Grix obviously felt like he'd been taken out by Ellis. Obviously Grix got the benefit of the doubt in that occasion.

I think given the circumstances and what the ref will actually have seen, that the decisions are very understandable.

Agreed on the Brough/Whiting one but Grix should have walked. I've no idea how much the ref saw but the VR will have seen enough.

grix should have seen red, last week meli did the same to arundel in extra time in the fc v devils match, didnt see arundel throwing punches after!

next team hudds play will benefit with both grix and brough banned if the rfl see sense

I don't agree Grix should have been sent off, I think a sin binning would have sufficed. I don't think he deserves a ban for it either.

Brough should get a ban though, no place for kicking someone in RL.

Yeah I don't think Silverwood took a report from the VR, which is something I think should change.
I understand the argument about we can't have constant VR reviews of every play but in a situation where the game has already stopped then I don't see why the ref can't ask the VR what he can see in an incident. If that option was available then it would have at least cleared up the Brough/Whiting one.

difference of opinions, the fact that grix threw a number of punches should have warrented a red, if it was a single punch i would agree

isnt punching an opponent a grade A offence that could lead to a match ban?

Not only did Grix throw a number of punches, he also threw in a headbutt at one point too amongst the flying fists. He should have been sent off then and you could argue he should have been sent off again later for trying to rip Whiting's arm out of the shoulder joint!

Not sure why Whiting got binned as all he did was approach Brough. Brough threw the punches, Rich didn't throw one! Can't see any further against again him but can see Brough getting two games; one for kicking Rich and other for the punching.

Brough will be free to okay next game.

Grix should be banned for being really bad at punching.

Whiting should be banned for attacking Broughs fists with his face, thats really dangerous stuff.

Not great from Silverwood if im honest. THere was a bit of needle throughout the game which he let go then arbitrarily clamped down on one incident and punished a player from both sides, which isnt really a punishment at all.
we saw three clashes, in all three examples (though only two had punches thrown) The hudds player was the aggressor. Yet Hull also ended up with a man in the bin. Poor refeering in my opinion.

Grix should have seen the red card, the same card should have been shown to Brough for cowardly kick out on Whiting. Whiting should have got a yellow like he did.

"The Man of Steel has gone a bit rusty."

An uncharacteristically witty remark from Eddie!

Brough has been heading for a melt-down for a few weeks - effing and jeffing at the officials and niggling with opposition players; this is what he does when things aren't going his way and why he probably isn't really Captain material. He deserved to see red for the kick that lead to the incident and he'll probably get a ban for it when it's reviewed; god knows why Whiting walked as well - that was baffling.

Grix should have been a straight red, for the sake of consistency - last season, when punching was the offence du jour, it would have been. They've followed through with it in the NRL, so what you see now are groups of players coming together and grabbing each others shirts, but no punches thrown - it's quite amusing to watch.

Meanwhile, as ever, the only consistent thing about SL referees is their inconsistency.

I never worked out what happened in the third. Westerman and the Hudds player (couldn't work out who) seemed to be stopping just short of handbags and leaving it to verbals, but I have no idea why it started.

Could Whiting have been banned for a potential professional foul (he holds onto Broughs legs much longer than he needed to, the ball had long gone) couple with the fact he went after Brough?

That and attempt to diffuse the situation by punishing both teams.

I don't think Brough's kicking out was malicious either, definitely reckless though.

No I'm not a Hull or Hudds fan (nor a fan of their rival teams).

Last nights game was the perfect example of what's wrong with the game, its no consistent and is now bordering on the stupid. Union has got the reffing right and we need to learn from them, I am always hearing the phrase
" bad reffing always balances itself out over a match/ season " this only goes to back up bad decisions or even corrupt decisions.

The two Hull chairmen have both been fined and censored for speaking out about bad, inconsistent disciplinary decisons both on and off the pitch. It is driving people away and I question why anyone would spend money to watch a sport which is beginning to look like Vince McMahon should advise the new UK WWE franchise or as we call it RFL...........

Union reffing is just as "inconsistent"/controversial. It's just not as easily seen and the tv commentators don't go on and on about it.

No they haven't. They've been fined for the way in which they spoke out about the disciplinary.
Adam Pearson walked out of the disciplinary hearing and called the judge "batty". That is completely unprofessional and deserves some punishment.

Neil Hudgell called the panel clueless and suggested that they're corrupt. Again completely unprofessional and deserves a punishment.

They HAVE NOT been punished for criticising the disciplinary or their decisions. It is the way in which they did. If they'd been a little more grown up then they wouldn't have been fined.

As for the disciplinary panel driving people away...

The ramblings of a mad man.

Have you watched any football recently? And I've no idea which union you refer to, but rugby union, if thats what you meant, is far from perfect.

I love this idea that the disciplinary panel is driving people away. Its hilarious.

Yes football still has problems with inconsistency and has millions to spend on it. Although shown by only just bringing in goal line technology they are not fans of cameras of replays

If our game ever got like football, where half the game is taken up with grown men rolling about the floor feigning mortal pain, and the other half surrounding officials and berating them, I would pack it in.

RU on the other hand has solved the problem. They added an additional 7,284 infringements to their rule book, so that whatever happens, it is always a penalty, so everyone is happy, as are the players as they get at least an extra 15 minutes rest a game while complicated goal kicking rituals are performed by specially trained mime artists. An added if surprising bonus was that, far from being piissed off at constant interruptions for penalty kicks, RU fans have their own version of constant beer and burger breaks like NFL, but without the game lasting 3 or 4 hours, and have all improbably become connoiseurs of kicking rituals and applaud them richly.


You know, that was my initial reaction too, but then when I thought about how many former fans I knew of that had said, "[iyou know Aardvark, I no longer go to games as I am unhappy with inconsistency in the disciplinary panel decisions[/i", and I couldn't think of any fscker at all who ever said anything of the sort, I thought "what a good initial reaction".

There are people that no longer go because of the perceived poor standard of match officials. They may not articulate their words very well, but that's often what they're getting at.

At the end of the day, many people are fans if justice and fairness: that being seeing the rewards or consequences for your actions. That goes all the way through the game. I completely agree that AP and NH should have been fined for "the way" they put their point across. I do not agree that the RFL Disciplinary Panel therefore do not have to address their concerns. They spew out the same prepared general statements after each criticism and avoid the issue at stake.

It's the lack of accountability and consequences for those in important roles that is driving people away (not me). People are clearly fed up of it. What the RFL needs to do is be open, honest and educate their clientele. They may be doing the right things and the fans/players/coaches may be in the wrong, but sitting in your office handing out fines for anyone that speaks out isn't going to stop anyone that believes something is unfair or unjust.

I am a big supporter of the RFL in many ways. But I think the way they deal with people who are aggrieved (whether rightly or wrongly) is awful, and with referees/DP being the biggest source of aggrievance, it's what often gets cited as the reason.

But WHY is it the players who are classed consistent

They tackle badly, mess about at the play the ball, stand offside, hold down, rub player faces, drag legs etc. They get penalised and yet all you hear on here is moan moan moan that the player has been caught and it's unfair.

Week in week out they let the game down .

A suggestion FWIW , how about the PLAYERS NOT CHEATING for a start, so that when something goes wrong the fury that is always thrown at match officials is thrown at the players CONSISTENTLY because there are players who cheat consistently.

The match officials then would have little to do and the games would be played to the rules CONSISTENTLY by all teams wouldn't they.

That kind of radical thinking will get you [size=200OUTTA HERE[/size