And was sinbinned for it.

Great news about Taylor, thought and a great chance for Masi or Turgut.

No problem with him getting a four match ban as long as the RL are consistent with their bans.If everybody was treated the same there would be no problems,but the RL seem to have different bans for different players and different clubs

Great news about Taylor, was fearing 2 games tbh. Did he have an EGP?

I believe he did but they chose not to use it and plead not guilty

Smart. Did Watts have one?

It said EGP not available. Not sure if that was due to him or due to the grading, if you get what I mean.

I don't think you can use an EGP above a certain grading.

Think Watts used it last year.

It's no EGP for grade D and above.

You are right, but he did use his last year, do won't be able to use it in the near future.

You're right - here's the jargon....

If I remember rightly that ban was harsh and he shouldn't have used hi EGP, not that it would have helped, can't remember who is was against?

Needs to control himself more.

I think a lot of it with watts is fatigue mixed with over enthusiasm. He gets over played due to bowden and green being weaker than watts and taylor.

I like watts a lot and he's a very important part of the team. Let's be honest, before his sin binning we all thought he'd won us the game with a great piece of individual play

Watts is a top forward. If you're playing prop in SL you will find yourself in an occasional bit of bother. 4 matches is on the harsh side but it wasn't a great tackle - obviously we all await to see the disciplinary reaction after the next throw on TV.

picked up an injury during the catalan game and will use the time off to recover from it, he posted on twitter a few moments ago, that he hopes the disciplinary panel are consistent if similar happens again


dont hold your breath on the last sentance!

Possibly, but I think some of the more 'exuberent' tackling comes directly from the coaching the forwards are receiving and the way the coach is trying to fire the team up. Until that changes or calms down, expect to have almost regular appearances at the disciplinary panel every week.

I don't think we can complain about the 4-match ban or the sin-binning, that kind of stuff needs stamping out, utter stupidity from Wattsy really.

Other than that I thought he had a really good game on Thursday, but he is prone to the odd brainfart (as most rugby players are to be fair), but his brainfarts are usually really costly. For someone who's on the pitch for what around 50-70% of the time, he gives away a stupid amount of penalties too.

To be honest I think 4 games considering Watts was also sinbinned is on the harsh side for the tackle. However as long as the RFL are consistant and all tackles similar to the one by Watts are met with the same level of punishment then we can have no arguement, but I'm betting there will be very different stories through the season etc.

Wonder what charge Hicks was brought up on? Think Baitieri is unfortunate to cop a ban as seemed more like Hicks ran into him and he just put his hands up to stop him colliding.

Still think the disciplinary is not transparent enough and still has a different set of rules for certain clubs but thats just the cynic in me.

Agree on that. McShane copped a 1-match ban for lifting the legs (dangerous throw) in R1, charged as a Grade B, Watts though was a Grade D and 4-matches.

They were different in that Watts was third man in and McShane on his own, but it'd be good to have clarity on whether that was the reasoning behind the more severe grading (and if not, what was).

But they are remarkably consistent, its just those additional clauses they don't publish

1 If the player is required for an England appearance and its thought he can't be replaced adequately then adjust the sentence to ensure he is available.

2 If he plays for Leeds then 1 game automatic discount, latest example has just happened when you compare Ablett and Batieri up for similar (though of course Ablett's exemplary record apparently helped

).

3 If he plays for Wigan then ask them what their needs are and have the freedom to reduce to whatever the pie eating cheats demand.

4 Just for fun if a chairman of a club is being awkward or annoying (Koucash springs to mind as the most common offender) then impose a harsher sentence on his players.

Details of the verdicts are here.... www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/disciplinary One interesting comment by the panel in the Taylor case... Quote The opponent is in a vulnerable position and receives treatment, however, does continue to play on.'" Moa defence includes the comment... Quote It is noted that the charge does not mention a late challenge.'"

Details of the verdicts are here.... www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/disciplinary One interesting comment by the panel in the Taylor case... Quote The opponent is in a vulnerable position and receives treatment, however, does continue to play on.'" Moa defence includes the comment... Quote It is noted that the charge does not mention a late challenge.'"

I come in peace. I always enjoy my trips to Hull. Great ground with great fans. I just wondered if you had any evidence to support your theory? I'm not above a bit of a conspiracy theory myself, but I can't recall anything particularly bad in the last few years since the Ben Flower incident for which he (correctly) got six months.

Funny you should mention Flower. This one for a spear tackle reduced to zero last year was one particularly corrupt incident, look up on the RFL Disciplinary page ON/493/16 - Appeal

Then of course there was a direct head shot from SOL that finished a player off for the season ON/577/16. One of the most disgraceful fouls seen yet worthy of 1 game only.

Those are the highlights then there's the Tautai cannonballs and other SOL lifts that never get beyond an airy dismissal. There's more if you want to go back further but that's enough for now.

I see what you mean.

Why do you think that Wigan are treated more leniently than Hull by the RFL? When you say 'cheating' - do you think money is changing hands or something equally sinister?

It's just favourable treatment. How many times was o'loughlin up before the beak before he finally got a token ban? It's an impossibility that he wasn't guilty in one or more of those previous cases yet he was never banned. Maybe they (rightly) just feel sorry for people from wigan?