He hasn't been cited 30 times - he is in the RFL match review database that many times. Occasionally people try to trot out the number of entries in this list as if it proves something - the reality is the vast majority of things looked at by the match review panel end in no action, no further action, penalty sufficient etc. It doesn't bear any relationship to how dirty or not a player is.

He's not as good as people make him out to be. Just an opinion but he never seems to be a team player, just a glory hunter and certainly not international standard.

Maybe he should have been charged more often, I mean he put Mason Caton Brown on crutches for most of the season with his cannonball tackle at Easter, he got away scot free. Horrible little grub.

Even if he gets a 3 match ban, Hudds' fixtures coming up might not make it a critical loss as they play the 3 'unfancied' Championship clubs next.

Fev (h)
Batley (a)
London (h)

Will be back for the crunch ones against HKR, Leeds and Leigh.

Might have drawn Wane/s attention, he does like signing that type of temperament in a player.

exactly, can have a nice rest

and after 3 wins become the new scapegoat for scott grix

On his day, Brough is/was one of the best kickers of the ball in the game and has all of the other skills required to be a top class HB.
Unfortunately, he's never really been given the chance at international level (sorry Scotland fans) and with the lack of a decent HB for England for so many years, he should have had the shirt.
Unfortunately, the incident against Salford does him no favours whatsoever and he should cop a couple of games.
Clearly, there has been something wrong in the Huddersfield camp this season and Brough may have been part of the problem.
He's looked far from happy and very frustrated for most of the season and he's quick to throw his teddy out of the pram when things aren't going his way.

Brough's attitude is what ruled him out of an England place. His only international place will be in a smaller nation where it can still be all about him.

Someone somewhere has cocked up. Brough with two matches despite the use of an intentional elbow which is 4 matches minimum. Tony Smith has recently called for a debate on the disciplinary process, this would be very welcome in order to iron out these amateur inconsistentices.

Deliberate strike with the elbow is 8 games minimum, by the RFL's own rule book.

The problem here is that he was cited for an accidental elbow (Which is incorrect as it was deliberate) which carries 2-3 ban.

His EGP means he's been given a two match ban.

Whoever cited it as an accidental elbow is either blind or a coward.

misses just the fev and batley games then

brierley will get a go in the halves now to partner ellis

Brough even has the gall to suggest that contact was made trying to push himself off from the tackle.

They should have given him an extra game, for being a bare faced liar.

Kouca$h not happy with the outcome here :- www.totalrl.com/koukash-unimpres ... anded-rfl/?

Kouca$h not happy with the outcome here :- www.totalrl.com/koukash-unimpres ... anded-rfl/?

You're 'avin' a laugh ....

Brough looks up to see where the ref is (running away/not looking/following play), decides he will get away with a cheap & nasty shot to the neck face with a forearm smash.

Pre meditated & cowardly.

Nuff said.

2 game ban and £300 fine is the outcome

Which shows that Koukash & now Smith are correct ....

RFL, not fit for purpose.

It's just getting silly now; the disciplinary panel is making inexplicably stupid decisions on a week by week basis, and no one seems willing, or able, to bring them into line. Makes the RFL look foolish and infuriates owners, players and supporters.

Maybe the only stakeholder who matters now is Sky, and they won't want big name players banned for multiple games, for fear of impacting on the viewing figures?

The thing that annoys me about this one is they completely ignore their own guidelines. I said earlier in the thread I thought it was a grade C and that's what he got. I've no problem with the end result, it's how they got there I have a problem with.

Going off their guidelines and looking at the incident there's no doubt it was intentional and therefore should have carried a greater charge. If you get a high tackle for example, there's a possibility it could be intentional, it could, and is in most cases either mis timed and it is virtually impossible to prove either way. This one is different as I can't see any way it was anything but intentional.

The thing that annoys me about this one is they completely ignore their own guidelines. I said earlier in the thread I thought it was a grade C and that's what he got. I've no problem with the end result, it's how they got there I have a problem with.

Going off their guidelines and looking at the incident there's no doubt it was intentional and therefore should have carried a greater charge. If you get a high tackle for example, there's a possibility it could be intentional, it could, and is in most cases either mis timed and it is virtually impossible to prove either way. This one is different as I can't see any way it was anything but intentional. If they decide to have these guidelines they should follow them.

Does look corrupt and always goes in favour of the offending player, maybe the disciplinary needs to change the name, to Players Offending Offload Panel............P.O.O.P for short.

Pushing himself up using an elbow on someones head and they accept that as an excuse ha! I've heard it all now.
Boudebza at the start of the season got 4 games for a legitimate tackle and now in recent weeks O'loughlin gets 1 game for taking someones head off (with a former team mate on the panel) and Brough gets 2 games for elbowing a defenceless player in the head.
It is just laughable

The disciplinary just doesn't seem to be impartial like it should be.

The players disciplinary record should be taken into account but nothing else.

The players status, the 'level' of team he plays for etc shouldn't be considered a factor. The fact that they might have a 'big game' coming up on TV in 2 weeks time shouldn't be considered a factor. Yet sometimes it seems as though all of those play a part when sentencing is handed out.

For example, the tackle by O'Loughlin a few weeks ago when he took out Annakin and ended his season. He was charged with a grade C and yet ended up missing just 1 match despite clearly being guilty of an awful tackle.

I don't for a second believe that if the roles had been reversed and Annakin had done that exact same tackle on O'Loughlin and ended HIS season that he would have only been given a 1 match ban.

I think they have brought in too many factors to make the offence more tolerated and hence controversy decision making. The disciplinary seem to accept certain players have a tackling technique which seems to be sympathetic in the eyes of the disciplinary.
Take O'Loughlin as an example the majority of his tackling is done in the top shoulder and head areas, I think he has brought up to the disciplinary on around 32 occasions of which 28 of those are heads tackles. With receiving just one incident ban has his style of tackling been accepted by the disciplinary, if thats the case then he will always have a good discipline record.
I fully agree if Annakin had done the same tackle on O'Loughlin and ended his season the ban would be much more, it seems this holds up in the lower divisions as well.

Very good post and it's very hard to argue with any of that.
Brough certainly meant to strike his opponent in the face, no doubt whatsoever that his actions were deliberate.
However, what he did wasnt the same as elbowing someone in the face with the point of the elbow and there should be a difference in the penalty.

It would not surprise me if the disciplinary panel were being inconsistent on purpose. This sport is desperate for attention and so causing controversy through inadequate proceedings might grab a few headlines.

Or they might be downright gutless.