The thing that annoys me about this one is they completely ignore their own guidelines. I said earlier in the thread I thought it was a grade C and that's what he got. I've no problem with the end result, it's how they got there I have a problem with.

Going off their guidelines and looking at the incident there's no doubt it was intentional and therefore should have carried a greater charge. If you get a high tackle for example, there's a possibility it could be intentional, it could, and is in most cases either mis timed and it is virtually impossible to prove either way. This one is different as I can't see any way it was anything but intentional.

The thing that annoys me about this one is they completely ignore their own guidelines. I said earlier in the thread I thought it was a grade C and that's what he got. I've no problem with the end result, it's how they got there I have a problem with.

Going off their guidelines and looking at the incident there's no doubt it was intentional and therefore should have carried a greater charge. If you get a high tackle for example, there's a possibility it could be intentional, it could, and is in most cases either mis timed and it is virtually impossible to prove either way. This one is different as I can't see any way it was anything but intentional. If they decide to have these guidelines they should follow them.

Does look corrupt and always goes in favour of the offending player, maybe the disciplinary needs to change the name, to Players Offending Offload Panel............P.O.O.P for short.

Pushing himself up using an elbow on someones head and they accept that as an excuse ha! I've heard it all now.
Boudebza at the start of the season got 4 games for a legitimate tackle and now in recent weeks O'loughlin gets 1 game for taking someones head off (with a former team mate on the panel) and Brough gets 2 games for elbowing a defenceless player in the head.
It is just laughable

The disciplinary just doesn't seem to be impartial like it should be.

The players disciplinary record should be taken into account but nothing else.

The players status, the 'level' of team he plays for etc shouldn't be considered a factor. The fact that they might have a 'big game' coming up on TV in 2 weeks time shouldn't be considered a factor. Yet sometimes it seems as though all of those play a part when sentencing is handed out.

For example, the tackle by O'Loughlin a few weeks ago when he took out Annakin and ended his season. He was charged with a grade C and yet ended up missing just 1 match despite clearly being guilty of an awful tackle.

I don't for a second believe that if the roles had been reversed and Annakin had done that exact same tackle on O'Loughlin and ended HIS season that he would have only been given a 1 match ban.

I think they have brought in too many factors to make the offence more tolerated and hence controversy decision making. The disciplinary seem to accept certain players have a tackling technique which seems to be sympathetic in the eyes of the disciplinary.
Take O'Loughlin as an example the majority of his tackling is done in the top shoulder and head areas, I think he has brought up to the disciplinary on around 32 occasions of which 28 of those are heads tackles. With receiving just one incident ban has his style of tackling been accepted by the disciplinary, if thats the case then he will always have a good discipline record.
I fully agree if Annakin had done the same tackle on O'Loughlin and ended his season the ban would be much more, it seems this holds up in the lower divisions as well.

Very good post and it's very hard to argue with any of that.
Brough certainly meant to strike his opponent in the face, no doubt whatsoever that his actions were deliberate.
However, what he did wasnt the same as elbowing someone in the face with the point of the elbow and there should be a difference in the penalty.

It would not surprise me if the disciplinary panel were being inconsistent on purpose. This sport is desperate for attention and so causing controversy through inadequate proceedings might grab a few headlines.

Or they might be downright gutless.

I just think they struggle to be consistent and leave themselves open to criticism. Add in a dose of typical RL fan hysteria and you have a disgrace and a joke.

3 matches would seem to be more appropriate for Brough's offence IMO.

Compare & contrast SL punishments to those meated out in Championship/C'ship 1.

Like for like the severity of punishment on lower League RL players appears to be much higher than in SL.

It is the ineptitude of the RFL in seeing what Joe Public sees & adjudicating accordingly that grates for me, that & the disparity in penalty between like for like incidents.

A cowardly, innocuous action from Brough. I can't get worked up about it, 2 matches is sufficient. Whereas Flanders got away with attempted murder.

The punishments should be higher with like for like incidents the lower down the system we go in my opinion.

All the SL players are full time with insurance and have much better access to good training, rehab, physics etc etc. In the Championship & League 1 there are obviously lots of part time players for whom an injury is an utter disaster. So the punishments should be higher.

Whilst on the one had I agree with that, on the other it would send out a message to SL players that the RFL would be more lenient with them and as such the various acts of foul play would continue.

But by that logic, how do you deal with an incident in a Championship match between Bradford and Leigh, who likely have access to the rehab facilities etc as per a SL team? Do you still treat them under Championship rules? Also how do you deal with an incident in a Cup/8's game between say Leeds and Batley, where it's across two leagues?

The punishment should be the same regardless of the league it committed in and who it's committed on.

I tend to agree - in an already inconsistent area, the last thing we need is more inconsistency.

If the object of the disciplinary process is to protect the welfare of players by dealing with foul play, then the message should be that the welfare of *all* players is of equal importance; by extension, that protects the integrity of the sport. As it stands now, the message appears to be that the welfare of a player is contingent on the profile of the offender, or the team he plays for. That can't be right.

I dislike Brough as much as the next man but it was hardly a Ben Flower moment. Two seems about right.

As for Bradford and Leigh they're in a mostly part time league so it would be under harsher punishments the same as the rest of the league.

As for a cross leagues game then go by the lower league and the harsher punishments.

I know what people mean about inconsistency and adding to it however we also have to take into account differing contexts and circumstances. For instance I don't think there's many of us who want to see big bans handed out for a bit of a stand-up, face to face scrap in a SL game, however in the amateur leagues there should be big bans handed out. So I don't have a problem with having a disciplinary system that recognises the differences between leagues. The problem comes when there's such inconsistency within the same league.

Wigan hater!

IIRC the panel changes from week to week so consistency would have to depend on fairly comprehensive and restrictive guidance from the RFL to who ever in on the panel, in which case why have the panel.

I think that description should used when trying to asses the severity of an incident. Helps add abit of perspective.

It was a cheap shot from brough.............but it was no Ben Flower.

Maybe the RFL could issue the panel with a series of descriptors - ranging from a 'Moore' (an offence that someone says happened but there is no actual evidence of) right up to a 'Flower' (a brutal street mugging type offence, in plain view of two dozen HD super-zoom cameras and 50k supporters.) They could have a special category of 'Wigan' offences, which are used to denote those specific circumstances in which Shaun Wane won't be happy with any sanction, so the punishment can be pre-mitigated, to avoid upsetting him?

Alternatively, they could get people with some actual expertise and no (perceived or real) club bias, to make straightforward decisions based on the evidence they have available, regardless of who the offender plays for, how many times he's managed to wriggle out of it in the past, or what part of the season we happen to be in and whether his club is in contention. But that would be outrageous.

Or a 'wakefield' - ban by default.

Indeed - the 'Wakefield' category could be used to describe an offence where the panel can use absolute discretion to do whatever they want, because not enough people give a toss for it make any difference either way. Also useful in specific circumstances where a high profile player has fouled a colleague from a less significant club - his offence can be downgraded, using the "it's only Wakey" precedent, as established by Messrs Wane and O'Loughlin, 2016.

Of course it wasn't a 'Ben Flower incident', but he didn't get a 'Ben Flower punishment, did he?

It was a very nasty and premeditated cheap shot, and he's got off too lightly.

As for O'Loughlin, as a Wigan fan I'd say this: I think it's arguable whether there was malice intent, but from the point of view of player welfare it was certainly reckless, and yes, he should have got a longer ban. As many Wigan fans said on here at the time, punishments across the board are generally way too lenient. Going back to Brough, there was absolutely no doubt that there was malice intent in his case, and the punishment should have reflected that. Saying it was accidental contact with the elbow is a sick joke.

If anyone handed Sam or Lockers a similar tackle to the one that left anakin's season over then they would receive a very hefty ban imo
A 1 game ban for Lockers was disgraceful,but i suppose its a benefit to opposing sides by keeping him available for selection each week as he is clearly finished