This topic is one of the reasons why the NRL has 2 ref's. Both are close to the play and can confer in cases where there is doubt as to the circumstances of incidents, on or off the ball.
I dont think we have the number, or caliber of ref's to copy the aussies, so we should have video for all matches. These should be 'manned' by ex players. This would enable incidents to be reviewed (with a time limit) immediately and the relevant action taken at the time.
As a Castleford supporter, I saw from the stand that McIllorum deliberately intended to make contact with the head of Kirk Dixon in the recent league game at Cas. The ref bottled it and didnt even place it on report! This effectively reduced Cas to 16 men, left Wigan with a distinct advantage of having the original 17 and Kirk Dixon with a lengthy lay off due to a broken jaw! It was only when reviewed by the Disciplinary panel that appropriate punishment was delivered. This and the examples already given of players being put on report rather than being punished at the time tell us that either the ref's are incompetent or they need assistance from a second pair of eyes.
Whilst our ref's are allowed to bottle it by placing players on report or seemingly miss completely what is in front of their eyes they will continue to do so, because the RFL are giving them the tools to do just that.

In one of the RU six nation internationals recently a player was yellow carded, the ref watched the incident again on the big screen, changed his mind and sent him off. Not often I say this but RU have got that one spot on and the ref in that instance clearly wasn't afraid to exercise his authority.

Now in the Hull Widnes game even a video review might not be conclusive but I do think if the tackle is a blatant spear tackle and three players are involved one has got to walk. What would he have done if there was no on-report system? Just let it go completely? Games would descend into ill disciplined fights if that was the reaction IMO.

Pick the wrong player? Nothing to be blamed for and it's the offending teams problem.

I think the problem the Hull Widnes game highlights is on-report does give the refs a way out from making a controversial and/or tough decision. It's human nature in a way. It's someone elses problem and the ref has followed procedure.

Interesting discussion about this on Backchat the other night. Rod Studd, Stevo, Phil Caplan and a journo from the Yorkshire Evening Post (I think) were all of the opinion that the disciplinary body are letting the game down and that the sentencing is too lenient. They used Micky Macs tackle at Cas as an example of that leniency. Stevo wants to see bans of 6 months given out and feels that this would stop coaches and players from deliberately setting out to hurt the opposition. They also all agreed that the game will not attract youngsters if their parents feel that there is a real chance of getting badly hurt. There have been a couple of recent instances of this and they felt that litigation is just around the corner. The feeling was that the game couldn't afford this and therefore it needs to get tough on offenders.

The problem for most fans is that whilst we might broadly agree, no-one would want to lose the likes of Micky Mac for six months and I can imagine the vitriol on here if that happened. You need to be pretty sure that there is intent, and I believe that only the agressor really knows if there was intent or not.

Also, I don't believe that his tackle was any worse than many others. It's just that a guy had his jaw broken. Now, you can't have a justice system that is based on the outcome of the tackle and whether or not there was an injury. 'An eye for an eye' went out with the Old Testament (although some Muslim countries are happy to base their Justice Systems on something similar - not for me I'm afraid). Personally I think that getting a 3 match ban in MMc's case was about right, and he's had plenty of time kicking his heels thinking about it.

crazy idea, every rugby tackle tries to hurt the opposition with a tackle. The difference between a fair and unfair tackle can be half a second or half an inch mistiming. If they get injured 6 month them? Micky Macs was a terrible shame for the cas lad but it wasnt intentional as he was going down and copped a swing which a lot of players do to insert the tackle.

which player run into bentham and broke his leg? They should get a lifetime ban?

Think they have lost the plot there. Nothing to do with the MM tackle either.

My son played junior RU and now plays RL at Uni. We as parents knew the risks not because we thought some nutter was going to lamp our son but because of the games nature. It has a risk, like boxing or other contact sports. He loves it and I wish I was young enough to play again. You don't play either sport without accepting the risks so to litigate is nuts. You know the risks before you start.

I can also remember the era of automatic 8 match bans for high tackles. Joe Lydon got one for a tackle John Monie described as the best hit he had ever seen. Back then though we had alonger seasons, a premiership, JPS/regal trophy , county cups and and the CC. So while 8 matches was a lot it wasn't 1/3 of the season.

To me the debate you refer to sounds rather media driven over sensationalising stuff.