Bridge and Waterhouse have just been as bad as Lee

If Lee's 'tackle' wasn't a sending off, I'm not sure what is. Made worse by the fact Bentham had a clear view of the incident.
On a broader theme, the 'on report' system does need to be reviewed as it does nothing to compensate the team who suffer from the foul play - if Lee had broken Briers' jaw a ban would be of no advantage to them.
If a player is banned by the DC, should they serve that number of games when the teams meet in future (ie Lee would miss the next 3 games his team plays against Warrington)?

Bentham tonight has demonstrated how poor (and spineless) he is. But never mind smug Smith will still be smiling.

It needs binning completely. Coaches can cite incidents after the game if they see fit, but refs are too frequently using it as an excuse to avoid getting a card out.

it certainly does need reviewing as if lee gets banned it wont hinder us as we will just bring in lunt, hudds wont have to play any game time with 12 men and wire didnt benefit today

Thats what I thought. He'll probably get banned but Huddersfield won't really be bothered. It's a like for like replacement really. Wire gain no benefit, and would have been at a real DISadvantage if Briers had been injured. Bentham lost that match tonight, absolutely bottled it.

People who are saying there were tackles just as bad in that game are talking absolute rubbish.

Briers was hardly going down in the tackle was he? He wasn't running at any pace, and he didn't apply any footwork at the line. It was just a clear, poor, shocking tackle. I don't think he meant it but it doesn't make any difference.

I would have had no complaints if he had been given a red card

Similarly Bridge and Brown should have been sin binned

And Briers as he twice took a swing and connecting at least once with Brown.
That said none of it would have happened if Bentham had stamped on it straight away.

As it stands now Lee will get a ban which is all god and well as he should BUT due to Bentham's inaction a few others will as well due to there being a 'sheriff' with no guts.

Yep, And Lee should have walked .

I was very impressed with Luke George's massive hair.

Wasn't too impressed with Chris Bridge's effort to rip a chunk out of it (53rd minute).

thought the ref was spineless tonight - the dirty play and elbows were a direct consequence of an abdication of responsibility by the ref - I hope the RFL drop him for a few matches - absolutely woeful

It was a bad one but Warrington's behavior after it was unacceptable as well. They were almost feral in their attacks on the Giants players whenever there was a penalty or strong tackle after that. How Bridge in particular stayed on the field is beyond me.

Don't be ridiculous. There was the Lee tackle that should have been a straight red and then both Gilmore and Brown leading with the forearm into the face. Anything that Bridge did was nothing compared to those three incidents.

surely a player should get at least ten minutes if its put on report, its basically the ref saying 'this might deserve a ban' at least the side (warrington in this case) would get some sort of advantage out of it even if it is for a short time

Refs can't sin bin for foul play. That's been the rule since McCallum was in charge of the whistle blowers.
Lee should have been sent off. The On Report was ridiculous.
I agree with the on report provided the ref and the TJ's are unsighted. In those cases I think the On Report is justified.
There was no justification for the On Report in the Briers/Lee incident. Lee should have been sent off.

lee should have gone, i'm just making the point that a slight rule change of 10 mins for on report might work to a certain extent

It might, but there are also circumstances when entirely innocent situations are put on report.

true, but its not like the refs get it right most of the time anyway is it

I'm with you on this one. Getting shut of "on report" would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What does need to happen though is the system should be applied properly and any referee deemed to be hiding behind it, should be disciplined.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a process for reporting incidents that the ref hasn't seen, merely that it shouldn't be an option available to the referee as this encourages the kind of abdication of responsibility we saw last night.

Don't all games get reviewed anyway? There isn't really any need for the "on report" option. Bentham bottled it and what ever little respect the players had for him was lost in that moment.

all games get reviewed by the 'match panel' anyway, but in my opinion should scrap the on report system no use as they will get picked up on anyway! all matches have a camera there recording them there should be a fourth official and if it looks dangerous but the ref isnt sure the 4th official has a gander at it and makes the decision, kind of like the review systems in cricket and american football where the coach or the captain calls for the decision to be reviewed.

IMO the Lee 'tackle' was a bad one. Briers was slightly crouched when he got hit but the fact that Lee cocked his arm and swung it is the issue.
I think Lee wanted to hit him across the chest but as Briers was crouched, he got hit smack in the mush which is unacceptable. When Briers stopped and crouched, Lee saw his opportunity to put the big hit on him and got it wrong - you could see by his immediate reaction that he knew he had.

I don't think there was intent on Lee's part to hit Briers in the face. The fact his timing and technique were wrong could have resulted in a bad injury for Briers. That means he should have walked and should pick up a ban with a warning about his technique.