no in that case, as rob has said, he serves 2 of his three games, so the final and the next game, and then the last game is reserved for the team the offence was commited against.

he just serves the full ban then if he will not play the team before he retires.

Still think it leaves it open to players not serving full bans in certain cases. Unplanned retirements or shock ones?

all just seems a bit too fiddly.

[list=[/listthen give an increased fine, largely increased.

this is not a bad idea in theory , perhaps more pertinent when a player is injured by foul play and doesnt return to the field in that game , on saturday Cross's actions made no difference as Myler wasn't injured . Still an interesting idea .

Isn't the banning system to disadvantage the players team not help the team the offence was committed against? that's how it works in every sport and always has

Good to see you back JWP, what narks me in a sky game is i think the 4th official could be used a lot more. I`m not having it that either the ref, 2 touch judges or the 4th official didn`t spot the late hit on Myler by Ben Cross.

All it would take is the 4th official to have a word in the refs ear to say that he`s quickly reviewing an incident that took place off the ball, could he stop play for a minute. That was an obvious one that should have been dealt with at the time, some obviously need reviewing at a later date that are a bit more tricky.

RL is about innovation and setting the standard for other sports which is what we keep on getting told, lets be innovative along these lines and set the standard again for other sports to follow.

Someone pointed out earlier, what if Myler had been injured during that incident and could take no further part in the game and then missed a few weeks after ?

A ban at a later date wouldn`t benefit Warrington or any other team that had a similar incident occur to them where the guitly player stays on the pitch.

Ta, Rob.

I actually typed something out to that effect before but got distracted. The amount of times on SKY games you hear the referee like Ganson saying "Yer what, it's a bad 'un ..." and then he comes marching over, with a card etc or at the very least putting it on report to give the crowd that OFF!OFF!OFF! 15 seconds or so before the boos after the signal.

All it would take is the 4th official to tell the touch judge to 'Get On' with his flag, naturally that buys the ref 20-30 seconds or so time to get over to him, in which time they could be briefing him in his ear whilst watching it again by the time he gets to the touchie, he's a good idea what he's dealing with, whilst they feed him anymore info. In this case, Cross would have walked.

We're back to the whole Nathan Brown 'protecting the little blokes' stuff from 2010.

I see the difficulties re change of league/retirement but it is not insurmountable and would work in 90%+ cases.

On this point did Sir Les Boyd make his debut for us whilst serving the 15 month eye gouging ban in the Australian league? (I'm genuinely unsure)

Boyd was banned in Oz in July 84. Made his debut for Wire in Oct 85. Probably free of his ban by a matter of days

It's 'swings and roundabouts'. We won't receive any benefit should Ben Cross receive a ban, however there are likely to be plenty of occasions later in the season where we will benefit from players 'indiscretions' a game or two before they play us.

A bit like refereeing decisions, they'll even themselves out over time.

no no no no no no no no no

Like any other laws, they discipline the guilty. You run someone over in a car & they're not going to reward the victim, they're going to punish the person responsible.

I think compo claims have changed this!

If a player suffers an injury and suffers loss & expense as a result, that's still the case. But the law makers don't dole compo out.

The reason it wouldn't work.

Currently if in game 1 you commit an offence that is a 1 match ban you miss game 2 and come back for game 3.
Seems fine
but
if you were to have your rules you could potentially miss a concurrent 50% of the season.
you play game 1 through to game 13 picking up a niggly ban in each one then you miss the next 13 games in a row.

surely either way you are missing 13 games?

You are right, but not in one massive lump, at the moment getting a ban is akin to being rested, this isn't.

)

If there was a more substantial concession to committing an act such as to receive a ban, i can't really think of one.

Maybe the next time the teams meet, one less interchange.

Having not read through this thread i don't know if it has been mentioned but banning a player places the emphasis on the player (obviously) When i was in school and cubs etc i was told to behave as I was representing the group. A more logical idea would be to punish the team. They are unlikely to fall under all the what ifs such as if a player leaves the league.

eg. The club has the power to dock a player's wages for indiscretion but the fine would go to the club.

TBF the easiest way is the current way.

Firstly the incident needs to be caught. On the televised games its relatively easy. Cross would either be sin binned or sent off. Maybe there should be a second level of sin binning say 15 minutes.

This deals properly with the incident as it happens and punishes the offending side.

what i would like is this, in the televised games we have a video ref who is watching the game as we do, what he could have done is sent a message to Ganson letting him know that Cross had took out Myler and give him 10 in the bin. It would have benefitted us, it would benefit Leeds, they'd have him for the next game, everyone's a winner.
The long and short of it is the Refs need some balls

I have always been in favour of that.

However, I'm not sure how the video ref works. Does he have a constant live feed?