Sorry I mean what was your view of it.

I only saw it "live", I didn't see anything at the time, infact, at first, I though the ref was putting Houghton on report for speaking out of turn!

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

Like me, at the game, then seen and watched it on tv, can’t see anything but Tag making and assisting in the tackle, then getting back quickly to defend again, I suppose if you look hard enough you can find fault with anything. If we beat Leeds on Friday, maybe they should have given him longer.

I reckon he should just have knocked the referee over, just to keep the RFL bias to the top four going.

Are you attempting to advocate physical violence towards a match official?

Not at all, just saying how many double standards there are in the process.

Damn.

The Tompkins verdict is a good read. https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/di ... #advSearch They say that is was correctly graded at D, 3-5 matches, but a similar case (Barlow) deemed worse than Tomkins was given a 3 match penalty, so reduced Tomkins ban to 2. Quote MRP feel Grade D is appropriate for the following reasons. 1) Player is aggressive towards official 2) Players uses Foul and Abusive Language and questions the integrity of the official by using the word “cheat” 3) The abuse is repeated twice.'" I guess they never considered that the Barlow ban was too lenient. Also, Quote This tribunal wish to point out that this decision should not be used as a precedent for future cases'" Work that one out!

The Tompkins verdict is a good read. https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/di ... #advSearch They say that is was correctly graded at D, 3-5 matches, but a similar case (Barlow) deemed worse than Tomkins was given a 3 match penalty, so reduced Tomkins ban to 2. Quote MRP feel Grade D is appropriate for the following reasons. 1) Player is aggressive towards official 2) Players uses Foul and Abusive Language and questions the integrity of the official by using the word “cheat” 3) The abuse is repeated twice.'" I guess they never considered that the Barlow ban was too lenient. Also, Quote This tribunal wish to point out that this decision should not be used as a precedent for future cases'" Work that one out!

Another quiet weekend..... https://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_doc ... _FINAL.pdf

Another quiet weekend..... https://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_doc ... _FINAL.pdf

I love the hit on Ellis, doesnt know where contact was made but he knocked him out....the player had to leave the field but no further action needed.

What a croc of

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/g ... -1-9641607 Gaz gives it to Phil

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/g ... -1-9641607 Gaz gives it to Phil

I thought it looked like Ellis hit his head on the floor at the time but not sure

He definitely needs to become a Sky pundit, once we've finished needing him to play! (Ellis, not Clarke)

After just seeing the SLS how the hell can the RFL disciplinary panel say the video footage doesn’t show where the contact was??? It clearly shows it was definite contact with the head!!!
So yet again the RFL disciplinary panel is shown to be a complete joke and not really fit for purpose.

Had to check myself - forearm smash by Singleton, how could you miss that? 22:50 into the programme.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... 9-11032019 Quote Player reaches downwards over opponent’s shoulder whilst making attempt to tackle. Opponent is dipping when contact is made. Footage does not show point of contact on opponent.'"

Had to check myself - forearm smash by Singleton, how could you miss that? 22:50 into the programme.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... 9-11032019 Quote Player reaches downwards over opponent’s shoulder whilst making attempt to tackle. Opponent is dipping when contact is made. Footage does not show point of contact on opponent.'"

So they miss a shot to Ellis's head that anybody without a white stick can see on the coverage but see a tackle by Taylor that earned him a three match holiday?

Unfit for purpose.

Quote ="ccs"Had to check myself - forearm smash by Singleton, how could you miss that? 22:50 into the programme.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... 9-11032019 '" Not hard to miss is it? Maybe not intentional but careless and direct contact is made and can clearly be seen. When is an offence actually an offence? It’s clear and definite contact with the head. So questions need to be asked of the RFL as to how this is acceptable?

Quote ="ccs"Had to check myself - forearm smash by Singleton, how could you miss that? 22:50 into the programme.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... 9-11032019 '" Not hard to miss is it? Maybe not intentional but careless and direct contact is made and can clearly be seen. When is an offence actually an offence? It’s clear and definite contact with the head. So questions need to be asked of the RFL as to how this is acceptable?

They even say "Opponent is dipping when contact is made".

Singleton is 2 paces away, Ellis's body position doesn't change until hit by his forearm, it looks deliberate to me, but I'm biased.

I believe that's the line they quoted for one of the Liam Watts tackles. Didn't stop him getting a few weeks holiday though did it?

That was my point as to when is an offence actually an offence, as Watts was banned for less at the time and it was deemed he had a duty of care and responsibility to his opponent etc. So have things changed since?

Sutcliffe pretty much straight arms him and makes direct contact with the head. How the RFL disciplinary panel can say its not clear is beyond me unless the panel consists of Steve Wonder, Ray Charles & David Blunkett.

The big issue is the inconsistency week to week in the panel's findings. I don't for one minute think that the panel is in any way biased against any club, but unless I'm mistaken, isn't the panel made up of different people each time, so how can they be consistent over a season?

I think you are right, different people each week, different decisions, totally inconsistent.

A bit like the Referees

Seems consistent to me, Tag’s first game back and reported by Match Review Panel for Dangerous contact, no charge

Good band that Chris

Would be even better if I replace Blunkett with Jeff Healey