It was the ref that couldn't decide. Should have red carded all three

is it the fact that the city of hull have got 2 teams in the SL,and the rfl don`t like it,so coming down harder on the players from fc and kr,may dishearten the fans to the extent,that they will stop attending the games,and therefore,destroy one or both of the clubs.just a thought.

As said by 1865, if us or Rover have players doing bad tackles then yes they should be banned. However it's inconsistency we are looking for. Why do Paea, Ellis and Poore (twice) get banned when there are incidents like Ben Flowers, Westwood's and Bowen's who get let off Scott free.
Different teams play to a different set of rules.

I’ve no problem with Poore being banned, the man is a tool, but if the whiting one is as bad then there is a lot to answer for from the RFL.
Watching SL full time was interesting seeing Rich Agars interview about Gansons intervention at half time with the ref, low and behold second half Wakey got hammered by pens and lost a close one to saints. John Kear was fully behing RA on that one as well. Wonder if it’s a coincidence RA had a piece in one of the league papers criticising the way the ‘unfashionable’ clubs get dealt with by the RFL both in terms of disciplinary and went on to talk about visa’s and speed of RFL support.

Tbf RFL are just issuing bans on the grade of the challenge been put forward by the refs, so they are acting & dealing with each incident reported correctly,so it is bad calls by refs not to put the bowen or westwood incidents on report, people saying we live in hull we are been victimized by the RFL is nonsense imo..it is down to refs not having a pair & making the right calls in certain (top 4) clubs games.

An incident does not have to be put on report during the game for a player to be brought before the disciplinary panel.

As RG says every game is scrutinised afterwards by the Match Review Panel (Ganson + some ex players) and charges are brought forward as a result of that scrutiny regardless of whether referees placed incidents on report or not during a game. It's the inner workings of this particular set of individuals which appears to be to be totally lacking in any consistency or logic.

So why do we have 'on report' anyway if they look at every game? Seems a bit of a pointless exercise

Very much so. Maybe they think it will appease the fans in some way. It doesn't work - am I right in thinking it was an idea we got from Australia ?

I get that.. but unless the refs man up on certain players the game will always look corrupt.

Obviously you don't/didn't, or you wouldn't have said:

so why didn't they pick up on the bowen high Shot? Or the few in the saints game the week after? As john wilkin said into the refs ear " matty bowen" refs are poor & spineless..

They did pick up on the Bowen one they just decided not to ban him.

I'm not arguing that point, but the ref's lack of backbone has absolutely no bearing on the disciplinary process after the game, which you quite clearly stated it did.

But neither the ref or the panel dared to ban bowen! But if the ref reported it they would have given him a ban.

What planet are you on?

they wouln't have & didn't. The ref didn't place it on report, it still got looked at & no ban. Whether it was on report or not makes not one bit of difference.

I think it does..there's hitting someone high by accident & there's nearly taking another players head off resulting in them been stretchered off & is the penalty sufficient right for both types? Any high shot should be dealt with by a ref in the game its commited in imo.

Obviously, but you are wrong.

What you think and what actually happens are 2 totally different things.

I agree with this but lets be honest putting something 'on report' isn't dealing with anything. Its a waste of time & a cop-out for the refs.

Spot on. If the ref puts someone on report he must have seen something so it is just a cop out.

It is now that every , allegedly , game is scrutinised afterwards anyway. It's just a way of appeasing the spectators of the team "sinned against" rather than doing nothing other than giving a penalty. Each game is now effectively "on report" and that is the RFL making a huge rod for their own back. Surely if a player commits a bad foul which gets missed in a game it will be cited by someone afterwards. Where there is an incident in a game that is missed and there is no reaction from the opposing players , coaches , press etc then it can't be that bad so why is it necessary for Ganson and co to pore over the game looking for something that no one cares about. The Paea incident seemed to me to go unnoticed by everyone at the time? If the review panel were just looking at incidents that the ref wasn't sure about where there's no video ref at the game and incidents that are flagged as having been missed and are cited by someone later then the on report system has a place. As it is it's nothing more than theatre or pantomime more like!

It would seem that this 'on report' mullarkey is also affecting the NRL,the tackle that has just hospitalised Alex McKinnon was put 'on report'