Good to see Uncle 'I wish Salford all the best despite regularly making negative posts about them' Rico back on the forum.

I was at the game but I did not notice the 14 players on the field at the time;nor did the officials ( ref and touch judges ) or the Sky commentary team.Immediately after the game I spoke with the one person in the stadium who did make the observation.
There is nothing on the SCR website or in the RFL release - or other media outlets - which inform me about...
1) Which player entered the field to make the 14 - Before it was apparently Jordan James,now it is apparently Vic Mauro.The player who should have left the field,I think it has been agreed,was Darrell Griffin.
2) Is there an individual at fault or is there more than one person to blame ? If so who are those people ?
3) What alteration to the processes and procedures have now been taken to prevent a reoccurrence ?
4) As it appears SCR appealed against the fine ie.the amount of the fine,how can the RFL not just increase the fine if they consider it wrong to appeal ? Is their a soccer club/player who has appealed against a ban for a number of games had his club docked points or fined ? It should only be a relevant increase to what the original sanction was.
Had SCR been docked 1 point and then appealed and lost,the further increased penalty could then,justifiably,be increased to more than one point.
The RFL just make it up as they go along and as they offer no explanation to the mugs who pay to watch the sport then it does not surprise me in the least that people find alternative ways to spend their time and their money.

The precedent is set.Off course it is.That was set at 10K fine for the offence.The fact that Salford appealed gave the RFL the chance to vary the original punishment.So for any club committing a similar offence it has to be a 10k fine but if you appeal it becomes 5k and the loss of points.

The more worrying aspect of all this is the total shambolic way the RFL has handled the whole situation.

From Salfords point of view why was there such a discrepancy in punishments between two similar offences,the other being the £100 fine handed to Saints.To hand out one of the largest fines ever dished out just smacks of victimisation to many Salford fans.Where was the RFL appointed official in all of this who obviously made a mess of things on the side lines.
By imposing such a huge fine the RFL were for all intents and purposes making an appeal inevitable especially when the Saints fine was factored into things.An appeal was made out a sense of fairness.Salford accepted they had broke the rules albeit unintentionally and would have accepted their punishment without a word if it had been seen to be a fair and just one.A 10K fine was none of those things.

From the Cas perspective you surely must be more concerned with why were the points not awarded to you once they were deducted from Salford.Again a precedent is being set that in years to come may come back to haunt the RFL in a big way.What happens when the new layout of the SL system is implemented.
Situations could arise where the clubs could say,Throw on a 14th man,we can take the 10K fine but we wont lose the points unless we appeal.Those points could be the difference between relegation or promotion.
Totally ridiculous situation the RFL has now created.

And all this confusion created by an organisation that gave away the TV rights to one of the highest rated sports in the UK,for next to nothing and then cant even find a Main Sponsor for SL after the whole Stobbart fiasco.Thats money lost that should have been going to our clubs.
Thats our wonderful RFL in a nutshell for you.Incompetent.

Happy to be here again, it's hard to stay away as you guys are always making the news these days, just the way you like it.

I was enjoying reading about the opinions on the fine/appeal etc when one of your 'own' had the temerity to suggest that the RFL should start looking closely at those clubs that had failed to deliver on their new grounds' promises, a bit of a quantum leap that I just couldn't resist responding to

the fine has gone up by 5000 plus 2 points it pays to keep stum and not cheat

Oh dear. We must help these Widnes people.

The fine was £10k and it is now £5k which means - at a stroke the Doctor has saved £5k with his appeal. 3 x One Way Tickets to Australia for Goldie & the Chuckle Brothers would cost about £3k so seems a good deal for the club.

I know! What is it with these Widnes people? It raises a "what came first" type question: Is the chemical industry the cause of mutants like the capital letter deprived "year of the viking", or did the chemical industry move to the Widnes area because the mutants were already there? I genuinely don't know the answer to this.

On the points deduction: Meh. This season is about performances (and the lack of) for us, and seeing young players coming through. The points are irrelevant.

Does this really matter, you can't blame Salford for lodging an appeal as it is a given right to do so.
Ok so the RL have slapped them on the wrists and "punished " them for their mistake. The two points deduction is in itself pathetic since due to their current league position and season so far does absolutely nothing, fair enough if this Super league actually had a meaning to it when in the lower half then fair enough it can then be seen to be a punishment as it is it just seems a total waste of time for those concerned.
I think most fans would agree that if the same had happened to their club you would want to see the officials of that club look to get a review of the case by appeal.

Time to move on and forget about it just as the clubs who bent the salary cap rules have.

A fair post, Marshy.

I will be keeping a sharp eye out both on Sky and at live games in case any other teams make this mistake, and I hope all Salford fans will keep a sharp eye out as well.then we will see how the RFL deal with other teams in the future.

Was the touch line official held accountable in any way for the mistake? Was his name mentioned when the RFL made statements on the matter? It's pathetic the RFL just make it up as they go along and protect their own.

Yes the two points and fine is irrelevent to Salford from a league standing aspect but it's the damage and embarrassment these power hungry people cause the game. And another question, do we know or will we ever find out who was on the panel that came to this latest conclusion?

The one thing that really infuriates me is the fact Jordan Tansey should have walked much earlier in the game for a shocking head high tackle on Williams. These Cas supporters go on about justice it's a joke. Let's be real Tansey only got off with a ban because of the 14-man issue.

No wonder the Salford/Manchester public won't buy into rugby league it's an absolute eef-in joke run by total amatuers with ulterior motives.

I know it's not in my best interests as a Salford supporter but If I was Koukash I'd be very tempted to tell Nigel Wood to stick his Superleague up his fat ar$e and let it die of a slow death in the shadows of RU and the NRL.

I can see why the club appealed. The fine was unprecedented, and 100 times what the last club to make a similar mistake received. I can't help but question whether the consequences would have been the same if this occurred last year, and we didn't have a wealthy owner. The fact that this makes no difference to anything of any consequence show how petty it all it. Personally, I hope it frustrates our players enough to spur them on for the rest of the season, something needs to.

Was anyone aware that Bradford had played for a short time with 14 when they beat us at our place a few weeks ago? We did not make a complaint and therefore no sanctions eee made.
How is that for knowing my operational rules Tigerade???

Well done.

Maybe you should have complained ?

While technically correct what we were all annoyed at on the day was that Tansey's tackle wasn't simply mistimed it was a deliberate high shot and as such he should have walked. Earlier on in the match there were a few others that you could tell were errors where his was in my mind a deliberate head high shot.

Dont talk wet. He got 'off' by staying on the field!

Also, how long as a high tackle been a red card? There's several debatable decisions every game. Either way, Tansey didn't avoid a ban because you guys put 14 on the pitch, he avoided a ban because he used his early guilty plea.

A deliberate high shot is a red card and Tansey's shot was a deliberate head shot. Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things for Salford but I personally think the RFL have set themselves a dangerous precidence with a points reduction for an innocent technical offence if say the winners of this years competition was found to have deliberately broken the salary cap where would they go?.

I would imagine you will be waiting a long time. Since Super League began in 1996 there have been over 6500 games played. Which means approximately 65,000 substitutions made (going on an average on 10 per game, but obviously some seasons have seen 12 interchanges allowed). Out of these 65,000 there have been three instances of teams fielding 14 players because substitutions were done incorrectly (that's an average of one mistake every 21,000 changes made) - so good luck waiting and spotting the next one!

That would be because it is not the touchline official's responsibility - it is the club's responsibility to ensure they have the correct number of players on the field at any one time. This is very clear in the RFL operational rules.

So he's about as useful then as ashtray on a motorbike or a chocolate fire guard. It's seems to me this rule is to protect the officials and take away the risk of them making a mistake.

Why can't they follow the example of a more professionally run sport like football and take the responsibility as match officials for the changes? I'm becoming more and more disillusioned with the sport.




Yes but how many times has it happened without people knowing about it? Counting players is something supporters don't do. I'd be astounded if this hasn't happened more than three times. It's one big can of worms for the RFL from now, can you imagine it happening in a Grand Final or big cup game? Will winners medals have to be returned?

You sound like a really interesting fella.

Quite possibly, yes. It would be a much better system to have an official dedicated to substitutions in RL. There may also be a systemic problem - at the moment a player entering the field is responsible for giving the official a numbered card to ensure no more than 10 substitutions are made. Therefore if a club makes more substitutions than allowed, you could blame the official. However, it is the responsibility of the team to ensure a player leaves the field when one enters.



I'm not surprised it's only happened three times, as it's such a simple rule to understand and follow.