But getting sent off means you are already serving a ban of sorts, and the team is down a player, in the same game in which the offence took place.
A ban handed down on a Tuesday night means that player gets a long rest, another player gets a game and the team can put out a full 13, so no real penalty.
Red cards can affect results more than bans.

No, what people want is more consistency. If you took your cherry and white tinted glasses off for second, you would be able to see that.

Transparency & consistency. That's all. The current judicial rules are way too subjective, blighted by the potential of non-independent panels and varying punishments.

We're talking about the reform of a crap system, not an in-game rule change. Wigan, Warrington, Hull, whoever - the system is awful and isn't fit for purpose.

Yet to werent too fussed about consistency with the Atkins case...........

FWIW last year Sinfield only received a two match ban for head butting Luke Dorn, yet earlier this year that French Hull KR hooker got double that for something far less worse (although Shenton suffered a season ending injury). Everything at the RFL is ridiculously amateur and the MRP desperately lacks consistency.

Tbh I haven't seen what Atkins so I can't comment on that. But if you're bringing it up, that just proves my point.

This isn't exactly the first thread on here bemoaning the judicial system we have in place is it?

If a new thread was started every time the panel awarded an inappropriate sentence, there'd be more threads than those tedious 'GAME ON' ones.

It's high profile. The England captain, a spectacular clothesline tackle, on Sky, a rare red card, the resulting injury from Anakin etc. Of course it's got more attention than usual.

One or two people who perceive they have some skin in the game with regard to this particular incident, are derailing a perfectly valid and sensible discussion; this is not about a bias, or perceived bias, towards any club - it's about a systemic problem with an aspect of the sport, with which the majority of stakeholders seem dissatisfied - owners, coaches, players and supporters have all kicked up a stink this season, albeit people tend to shout the loudest when their own team are disadvantaged, which devalues their argument somewhat. And you can bet your bottom dollar that those Wigan fans stoutly defending their man, or the process, in light of this incident, would be arranging a lynch mob if the situation were reversed, and Chris Anakin had taken out SoL with a stiff arm round the chops and walked away with a 1 game ban.

Just looking at the lack of logic or consistency in the way the panel have handled cases in this season alone, is enough to convince even the most ambivalent observer, that it's not fit for purpose; reform is required.

Just checked and it was 2014.Of course it was his first ever red card so only 1 game should have been the outcome;despite is occurring 8 minutes from time.

Don't think Dorn was seriously injured and missed 3 months of his career though.

Should a higher profile player be punished more severely as they are incorrectly perceived as role models?

My daughter could put on a better butt than Sinfield's attempt. 2 matches was fine in the circumstances.

The Sinfield nod of the head was never going to hurt anyone and was nothing , the Wigan captains tackle was awful and resulted in the player being knocked out and left him with a season ending injury . Wigan knew in my opinion that before they went to the disciplinary what the outcome would be otherwise why risk a possible 3 match ban and missing semi final

But shouldn't intention be taken into account more so than the end result, Sinfield absolutely intended to headbutt Dorn? it should have being 6 games minimum, it's an utterly dispicable act IMHO and has very very serious ramifications, more so than a deliberate leg twist.
How could Sinfield or anyone else predict the outcome? It's like saying attempted murder is less an offence than manslaughter, which it clearly isn't. If Dorn had suffered a bleed of the brain because the contact was heavier then what?

Ah, so nobody complained about Atkins getting 1 match for a grade c but they do when O'Loughlin does. And that happened because of my cherry and white glasses... Okay then.

Since a couple have described this as a stiff arm, no, [url=https://youtu.be/INzmrDRAtSUthis[/url is a stiff arm. Blatantly trying to exaggerate and distort this incident into something it isn't does nothing for the credibility of your argument. It was a poor tackle that's been punished accordingly. The histrionics are beyond pathetic.

No the fact some would defend a shot to the head like that is beyond pathetic.

Curious to know though EGW, do you think there needs to be changes within the disciplinary procedures? A simple yes or no answer would suffice.

Has anyone defended it or have you just made that up?

No, absolutely not, as long as Wigan continue to benefit from the corrupt system.

I posted it on the Wakey board but I'll put it here, if it helps. Annakin is not sidestepping anyone. He is running in a different direction with a perfectly healthy stride. O'Loughlin lashes out at him and takes him out, with his left knee buckling as he goes down. Your opinion is worth nothing compared to evidence. It's as bad a high shot as you're likely to see.

O'Loughlin missed about 55 minutes of the game. The same length of time that Wakefield were down to 3 interchange players. O'Loughlin will miss 80 minutes. Annakin will miss the rest of the season, which might include in a once in a lifetime Wembley trip for his hometown club. But when your mates are on the panel, it's not an issue

Except it isn't, is it? You lose all credibility with this blatant and desperate need to exagerate this incident into something it isn't. O'Loughlin was running in hard for a hard tackle and it went wrong, nothing more. Despite the convenient middle screenshot which obscures his right arm, both arms were in the process of wrapping around Annakin in a genuine attempt at a tackle; O'Loughlin's left arm isn't "stiff" but is bending around. If he'd met Annakin square on it likely wouldn't have been an issue, but unfortunately his shoulder made contact with Annakin's chin. As for the injury, it's very unfortunate but you're argument would hold more weight if Annakin had sustained a jaw, head or neck injury. The injury sustained was indirect and was simply very bad luck.

Now compare that tackle to the one below where Meli actually does perform a stiff arm aimed directly at Craig Hall's head.

Arguing about who had the stiffer arm is pathetic really.

Theres a much wider debate needed on the reform of the whole process, and there was on here - until a couple of petty Wigan fans dragged the conversation down to their level.

Atkins & Meli you could rightfully argue their actions were out of character. With O'L he is renowned for it, I don't know a player in SL who has put in more high shots, which is why I don't think it was just a poor tackle. I am not the only one who is astounded he hasn't been sent off before which, along with his status, has saved him from a longer ban.

Nothing petty about a difference of opinion. You're free to claim this was the worst tackle in the history of the game and I'm free to disagree, you've just got to accept that. Don't you think moaning for a week about a high tackle that was punished both on and off the field is petty?

It wasn't the worst tackle in the history of the game (I didn't say it was) and I haven't been moaning about that specific challenge all week. Your hyperbole and childish attitude is a little pathetic.

As I said, it's a much wider discussion that's needed regarding reform of the judicial process in our sport. Dragging the thread down to petty squabbles over "what was worst", or "everyone hates Wigan" is extremely short sighted.

The process as it stands isn't fair, consistent, transparent or independent. Only a completely blinkered luddite would be of the opinion the current process is fit for purpose.

The comparison with Meli wasn't about which was worst - I never said anything of the sort - it was simply a means of demonstrating that certain people's description of O'Loughlin's tackle and it's severity was inaccurate.

I've no problem with a wider discussion taking place but you simply cannot dictate what others discuss, and if someone makes statements, claims or bald accusations that others disagree with then they will respond as such. Describing it as "dragging the thread down" is a rather transparent attempt at shutting down views you don't personally like. You talk about petty squabbling but that's all you're doing now and it's dragging the thread off topic.