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?