So because it wasn't seen at the time, it then became a Grade C. Crazy if you ask me.

Thanks anyway.

Unbelievable that people are blaming Acton's idiocricy on the officials or some misguided belief of some agenda against Leigh. I am also not interested on what liabilities reside in other teams, I do however care about placing numb skulls in my own team. We don't need this risk, not now.

Can you imagine Weston or Moi Moi doing what Acton did. Even Hopkins or young Spenner? No, they are more far professional running their blood to water for the team , their fans, their club and it's Super League aspirations. They are intelligent enough to know what is required. A controlled , disciplined game.

Flanagon was just recovering from an accidental head injury and Acton charged him from behind full pelt to the ground and for no apparent reason. He could have sustained further injury.

Are you sure there ? If the TJ had seen Acton, he would have observed Acton running at full speed off the ball, away from the action taking out an opposition player. His flag would be up and play would be stopped. After hearing the TJs version the ref would also note that Flanagon was down injured from it, off the ball. It is then interpretation. I think a number of referees would deem punishment warrents more than a penalty. A penalty to Salford that could still have cost us the game I hasten to add.

Send him out. He is only two games in to a return from a 7 match ban. Enough is enough.

I don't think anyone is blaming the officials on Acton's idiotic behavior. I for one have said on a couple of post that i don't condone what he has done. The point you are missing Mr Rigby is the inconsistency of the disciplinary panel. When you used the term full pelt from behind, It was exactly the same as J Soward on Worthy with a different disciplinary outcome,but as reffy pointed out, it would have been penalty sufficient if the TJ had seen it. It beggars belief.

And btw -"If you care so much about placing numb skulls in your own team" You need to have a word with juksey on that one.

No, you can never be sure on these things just an opinion; it is all supposition because the officials missed it.

Refereeing
Bias - no
Inconsistency - Yes (but with the speed and multiple aspects on the go, 99% is down to honest error in judgement, bad viewing angle etc. All to be expected in any game. The 1% is just bad reffing)

Disciplinary
Bias - no
Inconsistency - Yes (and no reason why it should be so in my opinion)

Jamie Acton
Sorry but he is his own worst enemy and I would not play him again in these playoffs. He is a scary man with ball in hand and would be on my team sheet every time if that was all I was thinking about. Unfortunately he will at best give away 2-3 silly penalties a game, at worst we will be down to 12 men for 10 mins or the rest of the game when our team is in one of the most important times in its recent existence. I believe he is still worth keeping as a work in progress but as for these 8's, please keep him in the stands Neil.

Totally agree, the whole disciplinary process needs overhauling as it can be so inconsistent that it borders on incompetence.

Speaking of incompetence.

Should that read 'Incontinence'?

"DISCIPLINARY: Due to illness of the independent judge sitting on the disciplinary panel, tonight's hearings will now be heard on Wednesday."

What constitutes an independent judge? More to the point, who are the non-independent judges? Kouka££ and Flanagan? Barring that last bit, this is a genuine request for info.

Think its mainly former players

media.therfl.co.uk/docs/DISCIPLI ... 20Copy.pdf

media.therfl.co.uk/docs/DISCIPLI ... 20Copy.pdf

Thanks for the link, Glow. If one of the recurring names is NEIL Turley then, without intending to cast any doubt at all over his integrity, I realise that (certainly in the case of Leigh players being hauled before the beak) he couldn't possiblybe viewed as independent. I am still very much in the dark as to the criteria that define the independent judge though. Perhaps Reffy can help?

A panel member (ex player) is independent if he hasn't or hadn't any connection with the club the 'offender' plays for. I doubt Turley would be deliberating on Acton's case, not because he wouldn't do an honest job but to remove any calls of favouritism from opposition fans.

Thanks Reffy. That much understood and agreed with. The problem I have is that the release said THE independent. Presumably that would be the Chair? What qualifies THE independent judge.

The usually jocular Bongser is genuinely enquiring. I think that there would be a lot less controversy were we all suitably enlightened.

I am not sure that is correct. The judges for the week are picked well in advance and they obviously will not know which teams players are going to be cited until a day or 2 before.

Also, somebody like Danny Sculthorpe played at Leeds, Wigan, Warrington, Wakefield, Huddersfield and Castleford. That is half the teams currently in Super League so he would be bound to be judging at least one of his ex teams more often that not.

Tonight's panel includes Stuart Fielden and Danny Sculthorpe both ex Wigan. They are not judging on Wigan players tonight but they ARE helping hand down sentences to 2 Saints players who have a big derby match against Wigan in 2 days time...

I don't think they will be biased but at the same time calling them 'independent' is a stretch with 200+ Wigan appearances between them.

The third member and Chairman of the Tribunal is a Judge.

They can only make it as independent as is practically possible, former players at least have an understanding of the game. We simply have to trust their integrity, and having a 3 man panel should ensure any biased is weeded out.

Full ermine clad Judge fresh from naps in the House of Lords and sporting a wig dodgier than Eddie's?

In name only, without the paraphernalia.

Reffy tells me that the Judge is one in name only but Glow's question does put me in mind of another question on QI back in the day: "Why does the House of Lords smell vaguely of urine?" The answer proffered was that the good people of the upper chamber have a propensity to wear tweed a lot and that the colour in tweed is set using urine. That puts the wee in tweed.

Still unclear, Reffy, on what constitutes the independence of the Judge and Chair. I am not being deliberately obtuse.

The learned judge will only be bothered about procedure and law, he will ensure that the proceedings are done properly, the rugby bits will be the responsibility of the ex-players.

Local solicitor or full on Juris Prude?

A reet proper judge.