I was thinking earlier that if Ben Cross gets a ban it doesn`t really affect or benefit us in any way, it will be other teams that benefit from a ban. I think a fairer way to deal with these kind of incidents is to ban the player from playing in his next game against the team where he committed the offence.

As an example, lets say that Ben Cross gets a 3 game ban, that ban should include his next game against Warrington (not to include reserve games). He serves a 2 game ban straight away then the next time Warrington play Leeds he becomes ineligible. Thats a fairer way IMO as Warrington or any other team wouldn`t benefit from an oppositions player being banned at a later date for an offence that they committed during the game.

I`m just using the Ben Cross incident as an example, this isn`t about him personally as it relates to any player committing an offence who then goes on to get a ban at a later date.

How would this work if, using Ben Cross incident as an example, Leeds and Warrington weren't due to meet each other again. i.e the incident happened at the end of the season

Then the ban would carry forward to next season, even if the player transfers to another club during the off season then the ban would follow him to his new club.

Under the present system the club who the offence was committed against doesn`t benefit in any way, this would go some way to addressing that.

really simple idea Rob, but very good, ive often thought my self that something along these lines should happen.

On this occasion, I think the on-field officials were very poor to be honest. I know they've enough to do, keeping up with play and all that, but if they're eagle eyed enough to see a slight knock-on or a bloke cheating a yard then really they should see a massive, massive bloke smash a smaller bloke on a pitch.

Player retires or moves abroad without playing (or missing) offended team. Not fulfilled his full punishment

What then

Not shooting down idea, just gathering thoughts??

then he serves the rest of his ban in that league, as it would no longer affect the team who the ban was against.

honestly dont think that would happen , say a player gets cited by the RFL in semi final of a play off is he then eligible for the grand final and his ban would come into effect next season??? dont think that would be very fair

And retires?

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!