99% of charges receive no question or criticism. Of the 1% that do, a great many of the complaints and demands for change make little sense and would likely be detrimental to the 99% of the cases that everyone is happy with.

That was my point.

Ben Currie touched Richard Silverwood during Wires cup game against Leigh last season (search on the well known video hosting site for challenge cup 2015 warrington leigh and go to 61:30 in the match). For that innocuous little push Currie got three games reduced to two with an EGP. Any less than three for Charnley would be a farce.

Charnley 2 matches and £300 fine.

Talima Tautai pleads not guilty to dangerous contact, found guilty. 2 match ban and £300 fine.

Charnely pleads guilty gets two matches for something that at best was a fine. Tautai pleads not guilty and gets two matches for a tackle that was potentially career ending. Sorry both the system and the people involved are comical.

I thought it was a sending off offence for making contact with a match official? or have i got that wrong?

Either way, it should be clamped down on immediately!

You said it yourself, they're possible punishments, just a guide for the panel. Of course there are mitigating circumstances for every case.

I don't think its so much the people making the decisions (granted there have been one or two decisions that seems strange) but it's the grading. Its too leinient.

Stronger sentences should be handed out across the board. Cannonball tackles should be 10 games minimum.

Stuart Fielden said last night on radio yorkshire that it's the club's that can change that. They sign off the rules.

So instead of club chairman tweeting and moaning like a bloody teenagers,every week about the dsiclpinary, do something and get the rules changed.

They just throw the word consistency around but you're never going to get it as everyone disagrees on how long a player should be banned for

But the mitigation should be the reason the ban is at the lower end of the scale, not off the scale completely.

Why bother having a range of punishments for each grading if the panel can then simply decide something else?

In fact why bother with gradings at all?

Realistically what the O'loughlin case shows (and i accept its not just him and Im not trying to show a Wigan bias or anything like that) is that the gradings are essentially meaningless. A Grade C head high tackle doesnt carry a 2-3 game ban, it carries a 0 to Sin Die ban, the same as grade A, B, D, E and F.

I get that Charnley didnt do an awful lot, and 2 games seems harsh

But his punishment isnt really for him, nor really was it to protect the referee. Its to protect the referee at youth and amateur level who dont have 15 cameras protecting them.

This. A thousand times this.

I get that to a point however the rules/punishments at pro level cannot be used in that way. They have to be for the benefit of the pro competition.

For instance I think most people don't want to see a stray high arm or the odd bit of a scrap harshly punished at pro level. But at amateur level they should be very very harshly punished.

The same goes for touching the ref. I'd have been happy with a sin binning for Charnley. I get that pro players can get very worked up. It's their livlihood's and a massive part of their life and who they are. They train all week and go through often huge amounts of pain and adversity (both physical and mental) to play at a weekend. So I can understand a player losing control and doing what Charnley did. (That doesn't mean I condone it nor that I think it should go unpunished).

However at amateur level NOBODY should be anywhere close to that level of mental amplitude. So the exact same incident should get a much, much higher punishment at amateur level than at pro level. That punishment at amateur level (along with changing the backward attitudes) is what will deter the actions at amateur level, not what happens in SL.

I don't really have much of a beef with the disciplinary, I don't see the majority of infringements to pass comment.

But how come Ben Cockayne put a shot on the Hull F.C. centre (after he'd passed the ball), yet gets away scot-free?

Nah, Charnley is a professional. It is incumbent on him to control himself enough not to be grabbing a referee.

Amateur refs dont have 15 camera's there to decode whether the player grabbed them aggressively or passively, whether it was a grab or a punch, a barge or a push, the level of contact, the level of aggression. They are protected by the idea touching them is strictly prohibited, no if, buts or maybes, a strict liability offence.

Giving Charnley a slap on the wrist destroys that. I think its crazy to expect that minimising the punishment at pro level wont send out a message of increasing acceptability.

Indeed, so a harsher punishment then than in the pro game where intent and seriousness can be judged? And of course in the pro game the referee is, ultimately, safe. If a pro player went crazy and tried to assault a ref he would be restrained and the ref would be protected by other players and officials. That isn't the case in the amateur game.


I don't think it's crazy at all. Amateur players don't look at what happens in SL disciplinary meetings and think "oh well I won't do this" or "I will do that". It's the discipline in the amateur game that deters or encourages behaviour.

As I said, we have different expectations of the players because they are playing for different reasons and in a very different context. That's why we shouldn't punish a fight at pro level as harshly as one at amateur level.

But the point is that the pro game disciplinary should be there for the pro game, not as a way of attempting to regulate the amateur game. That's what the amateur game disciplinary is for. The 2 are very different beasts and the biggest single issue with the amateur game is that far, far too many people in it attempt to liken it to the pro game.

indeed. There is no record for an amateur ref. A player could of course deny it. So could his team-mates and mates in the crowd. He could claim the referee is massively over-reacting, that it was accidental. He could forward a million and one mitigating circumstances that can't be disproven.


The pro game is highest and most visible aspect of our game. it is the part of the game which shows the world what type of game we want to be, and im comfortable that the game we want to be is one where idiots cannot take out their frustrations on referees.

Also, i have no issues with amateurs getting more but it maks no sense for a 4-6 game punishment at amateur level to be a sinbinning at pro level

I think it does make sense when you separate the 2. We almost have to think of the 2 (the amateur and the pro game) as 2 different sports. They have (or should have) very different priorities, expectations, risks etc.

In that case I think it seems reasonable to have very different punishment levels, I also think it (seperate it from the pro game) is something we have to do if we want to get the most out of the amateur game.

I agree with everything else you put though.

Both Tautai and Charnley appealed.

Tautai's ban reduced to one game, Charnley's appeal rejected.

Do Wigan ever accept the original decision? They seem to appeal every verdict

The RFL don't like Wigan , Charnley's ban not being reduced terrible , won't be able to field a team next week !

No and why not ?

Can't blame them. Why shouldn't they appeal?

It's the spineless cowards at the RFL who are to blame. Far too often recently have we seen things changed, downgraded,overturned,etc. Just make a decision and stick to it.

Brilliant

You don't ask you don't get.

Wouldn't have grumbled had the Tautai appeal been turned down, I'm not a fan of those tackles.