And Makinson jumps in the air yet gets a 1 game reduction so he can play his last home game for the club. In that case you can’t have told Vaughan he should have jumped up. Yeh totally ridiculous statement by me but given some of the bans or none bans out the whole process is ridiculous.

For what it’s worth I personally thought the Makinson ban was harsh at the time but for me his was worse than what Vaughan got the same ban for but gets a reduction and Vaughan does not, I’d like to know how that is.

Yes, and nothing I said here contradicts that at all lmao. I was responding to a post that said "what is it that Vaughan is supposed to learn?". The lesson he needs to learn is obvious as his technique was all wrong for today's rules. It has nothing to do with my opinion on the MRP. You won't find me saying that he should be banned for 3 games or that I agree with that, because it's ridiculous. As have all the recent bans been for similar tackles. That doesn't change the fact that it's going to keep happening unless the players learn the lessons though, as Morgan Knowles and indeed Tommy Makinson keep finding out...

FWIW I dont have a problem with the rules themselves. I 100% understand the need to try and minimise head collisions and protect players and the game itself. I think the red card for the tackle was completely fair, even if I think we are seeing far, far too many red and yellow cards in general. My problem is with the MRP and retroactively giving out ridiculous suspensions as I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that this is effective for achieving their goal and all its doing is harming the game and ing off the fanbase, leaving swaths of players on the sidelines every week. A red card, and an auto 1 game ban due to getting a red card should be the punishment imo. And similar to football, you can hand out an auto triggered 1 game ban after you've accumulated 3-5 yellows or something like that. You can scrap the MRP or leave them to deal with stuff the ref actually puts on report and nothing else

You've got to be taking the with the bottom part. He was being swung around by one of your players with his arm flailing, and Ratchford directly behind him lmao. I don't even think its humanly possible for him to have done that on purpose. Ridiculous suggestion

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/63 ... view-panel

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/63 ... view-panel

Getting daft now

I didn`t notice any incident with Moses Mbye, yet he has now been suspended for 1 match.

Cullen et al. are a disgrace.

I've not heard of any issue but the fact Lachy was in his training gear at the end makes me think he would've got a rest for this one anyway. Feels like we're managing him back and thankfully we have a couple of options in the pack.

Still a daft decision by the panel though

Anyone spot what Mbye did?

No, but I could say the same for quite a few St Helens players.

Took out the passer after the ball went. Got pinged for
it during the match and was actually more contact than the one Lees got a yellow for. Player didn't stay down so it wasn't reviewed in slow mo about 40 times.

According to the pitchfork welders over on our favourite site (not so fast RD), it was the ref’s fault that Lees ran into him. I’m also finding it amusing that now they aren’t winning they have suddenly realised they aren’t the “entertainers”. How many years late are they?

It’s not Cull.

It’s been said that only 1 insurance agents has took on covering SL, with strict guidelines.
The RFL have very little choice if that is the case.

Perhaps point the finger at Fozzard and Goulding?

We should appoint the same insurance agent as the NRL uses, or UFC, MMA, WBA, WBC, IBF et al.

We can't afford their premiums.

No idea what the RFL insurance premium is?

How does it compare to the money that is being frittered to IMG with nothing of note in return?

Saints appealing Lees ban. Don’t see how they win that, contact with a referee.

Wonder when was the last time St Helens didn't appeal
a ban? Perhaps the initial ban notification for a Saints
player ends with ' See you tomorrow'.

Now that is the very definition of a frivolous appeal. Lucky he only got 1 game. Watch for the meltdown when it goes up to 2!

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/63 ... ptember-10

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/63 ... ptember-10

Don’t know why they bother banning Saints players.

I can see why Matty Lee's ban has been reduced. I was surprised at the time that Kendal decided to get in the middle of it as Lee's was running in and I suspect that is the mitigation. Very rare to see a match official step in. One that used to do it a lot was Tony Martin (touch judge from Oldham) and always makes me chuckle to see a match official that is 12 stone wet through get stuck in.

Well they’re right there does seem to be an anti Saints bias in the disciplinary

We need to hire their lawyers.

I know you’re being sarcastic and I’m not one of the ones that think they’re biased, but it’s not the disciplinary that deal with the appeals, it’s a completely independent panel that usually involves a lawyer and/or a judge

Christ, no wonder Saints are in so much debt.