Just wanted peoples thoughts on this one. In RL in general there are a growing number of suspensions dished out when the player was either put on report or the offence not noticed at the time. Although i completly agree that video evidence should be used this system offers no compensation to the team that the offence was committed against.

My suggestion is that if the offending player has not been sent off in the game he should receive his suspension and in addition suspended the next time his team plays the team he offended against. To use Mason as an example (sorry hudds fans). He's got 3 matches so that stands but then he would also have a fourth next time Hudds play Wigan.

Thoughts?

Following our last two games both Ablett & Mason have received three match bans.
Ablett missed the Saints semi plus games v Cas & Catalans.
Mason will miss matches v Salford, Catalans and a play off game.

Ablett could miss those games then play against us in the play off and maybe the Grand Final. That just seems so daft to me.
I have said for a while I think both players should miss their next three fixtures against Wigan. Never mind whoever's next.
Wigan were the offended team and they should be the ones to benefit. Not some random team from the fixture list.

The present system is from part time player days when all players worked and were very come day go day. Now all players are contracted, totally different.
Agree with the OP that the system needs to change and improve.

I like the idea in terms of it obviously seems to offer some justice to the team who the offence was made against.

However, imagine we dont play Hudds again this season. The RFL would have to remember that Mason was ineligible for next season. It could get complicated and I dont think the RFL do complicated.

Also, what would you do if Mason transferred to another club in the off season?

Exisiting bans carry over through transfers anyway. Remember when Terry Newton signed for Bradford and couldn't play until the middle of April because of his forearm smash on Long dand reultant 11-match suspension?

Ok dirtbag fair point.

I still think the scenario of carrying over suspensions is too difficult for the RFL. Also, it doesnt happen in any other sport and most importantly was not invented by the NRL.

Therefore, although I would lke it to happen, I dont think it will.

if the refs dealt with things the same in every game people wouldnt feel so hard done by how come ablott gets 3 games but locker doesnt even get put on report for a similar offence at murreyfield!

Me to!!

You still moaning on about that lockers!! I thought you may have moved on by now!!

why not you lot are moaning about everyone else still you make it sound like no one else in rugby league is allowed any success

We are now getting a new breed of trolls on here which are just making the forums tedious, and discussions are being taken way off topic. Surely something needs to be done?

we're moaning at something that happened the other day not the other month!!

i raised a fair point about the refs then he decided to be a child rather than respond in an adult way not trolling at all how is his silly emoticon a valid responce

i agree with the whole refs thing, they're shocking to say the least, but Lockers didnt hit the face with his elbow, he hit the chest. Sam could have broken something with that hit, Robinson took the brunt on his chest. thats why Ablett's is worthy of on report and a ban and Lockers not!

I sent Jacko32 the images of Lockers' fair but slightly late hit.

=#FF0000**We don't need it**

Think that says it all.

Yes a stupid responce to a stupid post!!

To get back on topic, does anyone agree with the OP that it needs changing or have opinions as to whether the system should be improved from the current banning procedure?

i dont think the rules need changing i think the refs need to grow a backbone and make the big calls if a player deserves a red and he gets 1 then the team get there advantage.
if you start saying a player gets banned for 3 games but all those games have to be against the team they committed the offence against this could work against that team.
for instance if a player from warrington gets 3 matches against wigan then they play the 3 lower teams but the banned player is still playing then wigan dont gain any advantage from that ban

2 in as many mins I agree with. If this had happened we would have more than likely been in a cup semi and won on sunday!!

fair do about the name calling, can we do something about the trolling then?

speaking about suspensions when is Ganson back?

according to today's mirror he's having talks with cummings, didn't read to well for ganson, might just get a 3 match ban and £300 fine

Backbone or not (and more often not) there are still things a ref will miss. To use my previous example i can understand how Bentham would miss the mason stamp. What my suggestion was is that the player would receive his ban as the system is now but in addition miss the next game against wigan.

I can understand how Bentham missed the incident, I mean it took Stevo three goes and that was because Carney was pleading with him to 'LOOK, LOOK'..!!!