Hope he is ok - second big knock for him in a fairly short space of time.

Did not see the incident on the big screen - was it a red?

If Pulatua's was, then yes.

second man in, direct contact with the head, I've certainly seen them given

Not seen it on TV yet, but I'd say so, yes. I just want consistency from the refs - at present it seems to depend who's reffing, and what mood they're in.

There's a case for it being red and there's a case for it being on report (due to inconsistent refereeing).

Westerman hit Lauaki in the face with his upper arm.

Previously Moa and Puletua have done similar and been sent off.

However, when Mika hit Turner in the face in the Hull Derby and nearly knocked him out, it was put on report.

So due to inconsistent refereeing you can argue it both ways.

Personally I would have put him in the sinbin.

What annoys me, also, is that punching is seen as an automatic red, yet challenges like the above mentioned are far more damaging than a punch.

Spot on. Whilst I'm in the pro shoulder charge camp, providing its legal, there needs to be consistency in punishing offenders when it goes wrong. That's all the fans, and indeed the players, are asking for.

having now seen the tv replay, it's poor technique at least, but a red for me, i'm not against the shoulder charge per say but that was without any control and the player moved his arm to make contact! should have been a red on the field for me

Why not in televised games if a player has deemed to have committed an offence and especially if the wronged player has to leave the field injured.There is reserve referee and the video referee at the game sin bin the player who has committed the offence whilst they look at the footage and if they think the offence is punishable with a red card after the 10 minute period when the player comes back on the field and the video has given the call that it is a sending off offence then show him a red card .Better still get rid of Cummins and get a controller of referees in charge .

And the best part is that the team who the offence was commited against get the benefit and not the team played a week later when a ban is dished out.

Shoulder / upper arm to face , should be a red card .

Ref last night stated to his touch judge that he didn't get a 100% clear view , thus couldn't be sure of point of contact .

Said very similar when it happened. I always thought 'on report' was for incidents where something has clearly happened, but neither the ref nor touch judges have seen it - it now seems to be just for when the ref doesn't want to make a tough decision. The disciplinary panel are only going to see the same footage as was on the big screen, so why couldn't he watch that & make his mind up?

And sin-binning seems to have almost disappeared completely. Always thought it was a good rule for incidents like, potentially, the one last night where a sending off may be deemed too harsh, but some punishment is warranted. It seems to have been replaced completely by on report - which as others have pointed out, has no impact on the game where the offence occured.

Was never a red card for me. He timed his challenge wrong and hit his head. The arm wasnt swinging, his elbow wasn't raised it was just a shoulder chsrge that was slightly mis timed. I think a penalty was sufficient just as the TP one should have been but unfortunately I think he'll be banned as tge RFL seem to be clamping down on it.

And the fact that people are coming out with comments such as "what do we do when someone dies" just makes the situation worse.

straight red - easy call for several reasons :

1 he was 2nd man in so had time to set himself up
2 eric wasnt falling, the position of his head never changed
3 it doesnt matter which part of your upper body you use, a straight hit to the head is a no-no

it was so clear on the video replay that i cant see how he can avoid a ban

why didnt they look at it on the screen? or get advice from the video ref?

Thats is what I didnt understand and it makes a mockery of previous decisions. In recent weeks players have been sent off after listening to the video ref. Last night the ref didnt even ask the video ref and simply but it on report as he said he didnt see it. No consistency from the referees once again.

The inconsistency of refs this past 2 seasons is getting worse every game.... Something needs to be done about their standards.they are spoiling to many games with their crazy decisions

I don't like this type of "tackle", and this is my reason. I think its cowardly.

You are only in any real danger of injuring your opponent, not yourself, because you don't put your head into the tackle. I'm sure people can cite instancies when the tackler has been injured, and players saying "its part of the game". But after one of these tackles which has been "Mistimed", its almost always the tackled person on the deck, and normally with a head injury. The tackle being talked about last night deserves to be punished because the arm was away from the body when it made contact. Where does a "shoulder charge" stop, and a "swinging arm" start?

You say that, but apparently the judiciary don't use the Sky footage and only use the video taken by the club/stadium cameras. Ridiculous if true.

Same scenario but Hock is the culprit, what happens?
Red card 3 match ban.

It's a conspiracy!

Should have been red, 2 match ban.

in which case i hope the club camera was filming the replay on the big screen !!

I see what you mean, but is there not an argument to say the way they do it means it's more consistent across the 7 games played that weekend?

Consistency and Rugby League decisions are not good bedfellows. Two of the seven games will have the"benefit" of the video referee, the other five will not.