It seems to me that every week there is an outpouring of righteous indignation regarding the results of the invisible disciplinary process. I believe that clubs, players, and supporters deserve a fairer, more transparent system.
So how about this for an idea.

Any player who, for whatever reason becomes subject to disciplinary action should be entitled to the following.

1. The player and his representative should be invited to attend the hearing.
2. The evidence used to determine the outcome, be it video or a report, should be reviewed with the player and his representative in attendance.
3. Both sides state their case regarding the evidence and the panel make their decision.
4. Decision a. Player accepts punishment.
Decision b. Panel accepts players explanation and no case to answer.
Decision c. Panel does not accept players explanation and sets punishment accordingly.
5. In the case of decision c, the announcement would be that the panel did not accept the players evidence and explanation and punishment set as per regulations.

An independent adjudicator would be ideal but within the RL family I don't think such a person exists.
It's not ideal but might help to clarify the suggestions bandied about of unfair treatment.

Any thoughts ?

What you're saying is roughly what happens now, the only difference is that contesting a ban comes after the decision to ban you has effectively been made, making it difficult to get overturned as it would show that the panel got it wrong.

The system was made to speed up the process as much as anything else.
There could be 50+ incidents a week to look at and the charge/no charge decision is taken first.

It works fine unless your players are charged or opposing players are not charged.

It's the difficulty of overturning a decision that needs addressing. If both parties review the evidence together a decision could be reached mutually, not always I agree, but it also stops the timewasting appeal process.

MATCH REVIEW PANEL MINUTES 18/02/2019 https://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_doc ... _FINAL.pdf

MATCH REVIEW PANEL MINUTES 18/02/2019 https://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_doc ... _FINAL.pdf

At the minute they just ask the lass on the drive through window what she thinks

Managed to pick up the Connor ban, a bit long, only taken a month for the rfl site to work properly...….

Relatively quiet this weekend...

Hallelujah

So there’s no case to answer for
Sam Tomkins pushing the referee to the ground.
Wow !

Joel Tomkins (Hull KR) - Grade D Questioning integrity of Match Official - Refer to tribunal

Ouch, the way they are going giving out bans this might be 3 or 4 if found guilty.

The way our luck has been I expected Danny to be sited for this tackle on Marc.....

No, he’s safe. The whistle had gone for full time and the ref missed it because he was trying to think of something to disallow the drop, nearly went to the screen to see if a Wigan hand had got to it

… fortunately, hand on the ball doesn't matter any more, still a goal.

You know, i'm sure we had a played banned for similar in the last few years.

Trent Merrin yellow carded for being naughty to the ref, Jack Hughes crushing the life out of Kenny Edwards, similar to our lads alleged offences, or is this not applicable to these two teams. Waiting with anticipation. Simplistic views perhaps, but you can only see what you see.

Another quiet week.... Quote The Match Review Panel have issued the following sanctions: Grant Millington (Castleford) - Grade C Repeated punching - 2 Match Penalty Notice Micky Paea (Hull FC) - Grade A Raising knee in tackle - 0 Match Penalty Notice The following players received cautions: Micky Paea (Hull FC) - Raising knee in tackle Eddie Battye (London) - Dangerous Contact'" I see all rovers sin bins were deemed "sufficient". https://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_doc ... _FINAL.pdf

Another quiet week.... Quote The Match Review Panel have issued the following sanctions: Grant Millington (Castleford) - Grade C Repeated punching - 2 Match Penalty Notice Micky Paea (Hull FC) - Grade A Raising knee in tackle - 0 Match Penalty Notice The following players received cautions: Micky Paea (Hull FC) - Raising knee in tackle Eddie Battye (London) - Dangerous Contact'" I see all rovers sin bins were deemed "sufficient". https://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_doc ... _FINAL.pdf

Dec Patton ?? Sure I saw a shoulder charge to the head in same game ?

Not altogether unhappy that more leeway being allowed, just really hacked off that our Vice Captain & best forward sitting out 3 games for less serious offences,

Not to mention the Connor ban ? Mind you Joel might just catch some serious grief for his indiscretion.

Well done Rovers for appealing and supporting one of their players, risking an increase in the penalty, but having the balls to test the system.

Don't quite see how pleading guilty can have such an impact on a reduction in the ban...



Radio Humberside are saying the ban has been reduced from 5 matches to 2.

So you think Taylor would have had his 2 bans reduced, bearing in mind a player is missing 8-10 weeks as a result of one of those "incidents".

Firstly I don’t, and neither do you, know what the outcome of an appeal would have been, but one thing is for sure if you don’t ask, you dont get.

Secondly as far as I know, if a player is injured due to the actions of another, the length of time the injured player is missing, is not a guideline for the length of any ban.

Luckily as we have won two out of three Tag was unfairly banned for, the blow has been softened somewhat.

Maybe the club knew that an appeal would not have been successful.

The charge was based on "to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player", the fact that the player was injured proves the likelihood of guilt, and grade C is 2-3 matches. Accidental is unlikely to be an acceptable excuse. An appeal could easily have increased the ban to 3 matches, not worth the risk.

Yes you can supply the RFL justification for his sentence, but all these incidents can be interpreted differently, I have seen these so called incidents, I presume you have as well, did you actually see any intent by our player.

I did see Jack Hughes bending the neck of Kenny Edwards, and amazingly the panel didn’t manage to catch that one. Inconsistency is angering the paying public.

I guess it depends what you mean by intent, does the panel actually take that into account?

The game was on sky, we all know that some camera angles can be inconclusive, and others give a different story.