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?

The SOL one was a f 'kin disgrace, intentional shot to the head, no attempt at a legitimate tackle in any way shape or form.
the panel gave mitigating factors to reduce the ban but then forgot about the aggravating factors.
he didn't accept his EGP so how can the panel state that he plead guilty (given how clear cut it was how can you not in any case)
They graded it as a C stating it was reckless, no, it was clearly deliberate, how can it not be given there was no attempt at a tackle at all.

Panel wording:
Potential for serious injury
MITIGATING FACTORS

first half dismissal, guilty plea, exemplary disciplinary record and first caution in 15 year career.
REASONS FOR DECISION

The tribunal have watched the DVD on several occasions and are satisfied this offence was graded correctly at Grade C. There is no doubt this was a reckless tackle. The contact with the opponents head was at speed and with considerable force. There was significant risk there would be contact with opponents head. This type of tackle would normally attract a more severe sanction. However taking into consideration the player was dismissed from the field in the first half of the game, the fact he has accepted his guilt and his exemplary record within the game over a long period of time this tribunal feel that a 1 match suspension and a £300 fine are appropriate.

no previous cautions because the disciplinary is a fackin joke, you only have to look at the Matt Bowen late/high shot that he jumped into to wipe out the Hudds player in his first match and got nothing for it to know the system is bent!

Its not Hull alone regarding Wigan's unfairly favourable treatment by the RFL. The cases I quoted involved Widnes and Wakefield and they didn't just outrage their supporters but the rest of the clubs as well. No its not money changing hands, but as has been said its clear favourable treatment. Whether it is just a legacy of the outrageously partisan stewardship from Uncle Mo's time I don't know but I would guess (fairly confidently though) that if you polled supporters around the game about who gets the most favourable treatment from the RFL then Wigan would be comfortably first, followed by Leeds with daylight third. To answer the inevitable complaints from some Wigan fans that this is mere jealousy then why don't St Helens attract a similar amount of dislike, even back to when they were at their peak? After all they had what most regard as the best ever team in the SL era yet you won't get many saying they got there by unfair means.

And don't get me started on salary cap cheating as well...

The no previous cautions or similar no previous offence is one of the oddest things about the disciplinary. It seems that someone with an appalling disciplinary record is allowed a let off (providing he plays for a favoured club) if he hasn't done this particular offence before. So Flower in the case I mentioned earlier got off because he hadn't done a spear tackle before. Only in this last week, Ablett - one of the grubbiest players in the game had his suspension put at the bottom end because he'd never clattered into a ref before. It's almost as if you have to collect an armful of badges like a Scout, head shot, cannonball, chicken wing, choke hold, etc before they even start thinking of previous for players from some clubs.

There's no conspiracy and there's no favourable treatment to certain clubs.

Claiming that there is just smacks of paranoia.

Is there a list anywhere of who sits on these panels? Any of our ex players on them? Who made the decision on watts

There is definitely a history of some players receiving much more lenient treatment than others. The lack of consistency and transparency of the process is what frustrates fans. We all know that other players will get dealt with much more leniently than watts for similar "tackles" this year.

The scenario where ex players are sitting on panels for players of their former clubs is open to criticism so should be stopped

I can just picture Shaun Wane sat with his players telling them what new piece of foul play they can all try this week. They've probably got a whole team working to find something Ben Flower has never been done for before.

Wasn't there going to be a working party or summat along those lines into the dealings of the disciplinary system ? Maybe I'm dreaming but I thought Hudge was going to be one of the investigators seem to remember reading something in the paper a while back.

.... you weren't dreaming..... www.rugby-league.com/article/390 ... ed-by-rfl-

.... you weren't dreaming..... www.rugby-league.com/article/390 ... ed-by-rfl-

Hudge and Motu, unless we've had some weird parralel dream!

Are you suggesting that doesn't happen?