Ridiculous decision.

I don't think we have ever won one of these when Grahame Hallas has been on the panel!

Can they extend it, if it is already at the maximum for the grade?

And we wonder why fans of most clubs have no faith in the clowns at Red Hall. The only person I've heard agree it was a red card was Gary Schofield on Radio Yorkshire on Monday night. I've not spoken to anyone who thinks it wasn't harsh, and most of us on casforum think it was harsh aswell. Should have been 'no further action, sorry for being idiots'! Ridiculous decision. If most of the opposition fans, the player involved, and the coach thought Watts was hard done by then what incident were the panel watching?? It's Hicks that should have picked up a ban for trying to impersonate a referee! Absolute garbage for both teams, he doesn't know what he's doing! And we have the idiot again this Saturday against Wigan!

It's nothing more than the RFL backing Hicks who at best I'd constantly incompetent. If that scenario is repeated again I'll bet there's no red card. As for Child's well there's nothing you can say. We are all aware now how it'll go this week. If we win it will be in spite of him being in charge.
Never mind throwing money at teams to buy marquee players. Why not invest some in the officials. We need two refs on the pitch( obviously never Child's and Hicks together). That might help. In their defence there's too much going on fir one ref to deal with. Mind you it was never going to work once the lunatic had taken over the asylum was it.
It needs sorting because this is where the game is beginning to lose its appeal.
Everyone of us knows that mistakes can be made. It's up to the RFL to minimise not excuse them..
The chairmen and club owners must act.

The latest and most disgraceful example of a completely corrupt disciplinary process. The sport is a joke from top to bottom and TBH I've about had enough. Results are now a lottery based as much on the match officials and disciplinary committee as they are on the squad.

Hull might as well appeal but we'll get nothing from it. It's clear that for whatever reason we have targets painted on us this season. Maybe we upset the apple cart by winning the CC last year. Who knows.

Thanks for coming on here and posting that.

At times it just reads like FC fans with chips on their shoulders so to know the opposition feel the same is comforting.

Sorry to hear you have got Hicks again this weekend but hope you win.

The appeal can alter the grading - so theoretically yes they can increase the sentence.

Thanks for the comments. Regarding you having Hicks again - bad luck, but we'll be no better off as Hull have Child to ruin things.

Think your post is how just about everyone else saw it and has seen it and even when the opposing coach, player himself and opposing fans think it harsh then that kinda sums up the RFL & the Disciplinary Panel.

The decision for me smacks of them blindly backing the ref and sweeping his inability under the carpet. This again adds to the fuel of the total lack of transparency in the officials and the workings behind the scenes meaning they are yet again unaccountable for their poor decision making and officiating from so called 'Pro' Officials. They are making the sport a joke.

The fact that Ganson has become the Ring Master just beggars belief as the officials are very much Gansonesque. The sport has moved on so much since turning Pro its ludicrous that the officials are not much better than they were back as Amateur Officials. The RFL and the officials themselves have to realise now they are so called full time Professionals they should be accountable but they still seem to think its acceptable as if they are still Amateur's.

On a side note Hicks is again reffing Cas this shouldn't be allowed to happen where a Ref officates a game containing one of the teams he officiated in last time.

The RFL need to look at themselves when asking why the sport is struggling to grow.

So has he pleaded gulity or not? Everything I've seen reports he pleaded not guilty yet the RFL statement says plea of guilt? Just adds more weight to the fact that the RFL don't know its from its elbow, as they still show an incident showing Watts 'No Charge' in 32nd minute along side the club stating Watts pleaded not guilty yet the decision states plea of guilt!!! WTF?

So are we now going to see a red card for every tackle for a second defending player going in the complete the intial tackle? If there is any contact to the head? If so then by halftime most games will be about 7/8 a side.

There is very litle difference if any to the Kyle Amor tackle but totally different outcome. Total and utter b0lIox again from the RFL and its joke panel.

He pleaded not guilty, but it seems the panel could not give him any credit because he pleaded not guilty.
Their wording is ridiculous.

How long do we, as clubs and supporters, have to put up with this shamateurism? it's really killing the game.

Now the idiots judgement is up I notice that previous appearances by Watts are counted as an aggravating factor. All well and good until you remember that lovely gentle Ben Flower managed to get a charge reduced because although he had rather more previous this was the first time he was up for that particular kind of foul. Not that I'd suggest that the process favours certain clubs.

I see that they have finally changed the timing of the other incident so its at least believable in that respect.

Anyway I don't think there's anything to lose by appealing this.

www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/dis ... #advSearch Ben Roberts 14/04/17 Opponent slips prior to contact. Player making legitimate attempt to make tackle with arm in low position. Makes contact to head of opponent. Penalty sufficient. No Charge High tackle 1st minute ( Tupou ) There'll be many more if we look and that's just the ones that get referred. How many head tackles/contact occurred in the last round or just in our game? Is there really 2.75 games difference between them all??? Question to RFL , Explain?

www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/dis ... #advSearch Ben Roberts 14/04/17 Opponent slips prior to contact. Player making legitimate attempt to make tackle with arm in low position. Makes contact to head of opponent. Penalty sufficient. No Charge High tackle 1st minute ( Tupou ) There'll be many more if we look and that's just the ones that get referred. How many head tackles/contact occurred in the last round or just in our game? Is there really 2.75 games difference between them all??? Question to RFL , Explain?

In fact Ben Roberts has another one ON/347/15. By comparison that one is worse. Nothing against him , although you need to watch your head in the first two minutes of a game , his was the first head tackle case I came across.

You are right ChrisH. I referred to this one in another thread the other day. I was at that game, and was at the game on Sunday and so saw both incidents. There was no difference in the 2, even to the point that both attackers went off with concussion. The only difference was that Tupou came back on and Gale didn't, but thats irrelevant. This inconsistency is ruining the game. I don't think I've watched a game this season, on TV or live, that there hasn't been inconsistency in decisions.

Everyone in the league knows that if it had been Sean O'Loughlin and not Liam Watts there would have been no case to answer. That's not having a go at O'Loughlin it's simply an indicator of the obvious and frankly unopposed and blatant way this system operates. Every club, player, and fan knows this and yet it still proliferates. I was hoping for big things from the review panel (including Motu?) that was supposed to study and recommend actions in this area last season. Alas we are still mired in total garbage, inconsistency, and pure bias that this shambolic and amateurish procedure offers.

The game has reached its peak on the field - if anything it's already started going backwards - but off the field the RFL continue to plumb the depths of new lows even where we thought that wasn't possible. It's a shame but a bunch of biased incompetents at the heart of the game continue to drag it through the gutter.

don't think so radders may not like it but will probably accept it. ithink watts has been treat very harshly

With respect to SOL, pretty much every time he has gone up it's 'examplary' record blah blah blah, well it would be if they keep stating it is so and not charging and/or being blind to tackles like the high tackle on the Wakey lad last year that was a shocker.

The inconsistancy never mind ignoring physics/phsiology is beyond contemp.
I said this on a rugby union video with regard to Dylan hartley when he got a 6 week ban for a 'head high' when the intial movement would have meant the arm would hit the ball carrier well below chest height, as DH arm is moving toward the player he is felled from behind and contact to the head is made. it would have being physically impossible for DH to move the trajectory of his arm which would have being legitimate in the first instance in that split second from the player being upright to not.
in watts case not only is his arm not swinging (DH was to a degree but irrelevant as you have to swing your arms in some fashion to make a tackle)
Watts however had his arm by his side and Gale's head virtually at his hip as gale fell into Watts arm.
it is ludicrous to suggest that it was careless (their description), how can barely moving your arm and the player falling into you be your fault, was Watts supposed to just not move and allow gale or any other player to just do what they want and not bother making any attempt at a tackle on the basis they might come to the ground, it's not even possible for the human brain to judge before an event happens what the outcome is going to be never mind change a part of your body mid-flight in a quicker time than a sprinter comes out the blocks, it simply isn't possible.
You're looking at 0.7 seconds at best if not longer that's just for the brain to absorb and diseminate what's happened (we know this from crash investigations on the road) for the motor action of the arm to be moved comes after but as your body's already in motion it's already way way too late to change and the event has already happened before your brain can do anything to even attempt to change the motion.

The thing is. How long can this be allowed to carry on?

It's not the first time, remember Peae a couple of years ago, and it won't be the last unless we start making a stand against them.

It shouldn't be allowed to continue.

Quote ="Staffs FC"I was hoping for big things from the review panel (including Motu?) that was supposed to study and recommend actions in this area last season.'" Still haven't reported yet. www.rugby-league.com/article/390 ... ive_scores

Quote ="Staffs FC"I was hoping for big things from the review panel (including Motu?) that was supposed to study and recommend actions in this area last season.'" Still haven't reported yet. www.rugby-league.com/article/390 ... ive_scores

Could you please explain how a stand can be made? genuine question