Punishment Should Fit the Crime I’ll start by nailing my colours well and truly to the mast, I’ve never really liked the on-report system. For me it is an easy cop-out for the weak referee; punishes the player after the event rather than benefitting the team offended against; and is a wholly unsatisfactory way to deal with incidents which incense supporters, rile players, and potentially effect results. It is time we had a re-think and encouraged our referees to be empowered on the pitch and make the decisions to punish the offender’s on-the-spot ensuring that their team pays the penalty for their indiscretions. READ MORE ON THIS STORY...

Punishment Should Fit the Crime I’ll start by nailing my colours well and truly to the mast, I’ve never really liked the on-report system. For me it is an easy cop-out for the weak referee; punishes the player after the event rather than benefitting the team offended against; and is a wholly unsatisfactory way to deal with incidents which incense supporters, rile players, and potentially effect results. It is time we had a re-think and encouraged our referees to be empowered on the pitch and make the decisions to punish the offender’s on-the-spot ensuring that their team pays the penalty for their indiscretions. READ MORE ON THIS STORY...

forget the Hull part as according to your analysis Ellis would have walked in the 18th minute so would have more likely conceded more points by the time Isa would have been taking a shower....

With the increase funding by sky all SL games should have a VT ref (after all they are all recorded now for the SL show and the RFL disp. panel) Don't need a big screen but instead of on report he makes the decision and relays to ref what he has seen on replay......the ref then deals with it.

For me, the report system is fine is theory, but used incorrectly by the refs - as you say, as a bit of a cop out.

The on-report system should be used when the ref has genuinely seen no infringement, but there is evidence of possible foul play (such as a injured player). For instance, a half back is cleaned up off the ball after kicking it, the ref's eye's perhaps followed the ball, but you've got a concussed half back - what happened there? For instance, there's a bit of a kick off that escalates because of people running in, too many bodies for the officials to keep track of, meaning that a video review will find out who were the real trouble makers.

Unfortunately, as you say, the refs have twisted this to lighten their responsibility and relieve some of the pressure of making possible game changing decisions. Foul play that occurs right in front of them is not being dealt with at the time, to the possible detriment of the wronged team.

Remove the on-report system and bring back the old citing system, where by clubs (and the disciplinary committee) can site any foul play that was missed in the game. This will remove a ref's ability to "pass" on the many card decisions that are merely placed on-report.

Don't want to do that? Then at least audit each refs "on-report" calls, review his position and if he appears well placed to make a decision, then he should give an accounts as to why he could not make a call during the match. It will soon become clear which ones are bottling decisions.

In regard to the Hull FC game there was a diabolical spear tackle incident on Richard Whiting in the first half which in light of the sad news from down under this weekend in regard to a player with a broken neck could have been catastrophic. Referee Thaler chose to put the incident on report because he and his officials were 'unable' to determine which of three Widnes tacklers were 'to blame' for the incident. His response during the RFL's #asktheref question session was as follows ....

(1/2) Sadly, we can’t sin bin for this offence, I totally agree that this incident could have been a dismissal #asktheref

(2/2) but as 3 players in tackle was hard to determine who was at fault only option is to put incident on report & penalise

So the referee feels that a sending off is justified but cops-out under the premise that he wasn't sure which player committed the crime. With this type of tackle it can often be more than one player that illegally contributes but in any case it would have been justified to pick out one of the players and dismiss him.

The worst part of this case however was that not one of players involved in the tackle were charged by the MRP on Monday evening - only cautions were meted out. As stated above the biggest problem here is the continuing failure of the MRP to act in a consistent manner. It seems that incidents are being cited almost at random by the MRP leading to clubs and fans wondering exactly what is going on when their player gets a two match suspension and then the next weekend on the TV they watch ten or twenty identical incidents pass without a mention.

The referees should be taking more responsibility on the field and the MRP system needs an overhaul. Due process needs to be seen to be being followed otherwise the panel will remain where it is now - in disrepute.

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.

I don't say this very often but this man has got it absolutely spot on ...

[urlhttp://www.hullkr.co.uk/club/news/article/Statement-from-the-Chairman[/url

the video shows the hull kr player holding the legs then driving them down towards the player its simple really. if he released the players legs then it wouldn't have been any different.

Ignoring individual grievances that we've all be storing up... I can't really see how this will work. Teams being forced to play games short handed will lead to obvious non-contests which in turn will hurt ticket sales and TV audience.

Solution has to be simple... and on report can be a useful tool where the referee genuinely hasn't seen an incident and is therefore unable to make a ruling.

However since they're all wearing head cameras these days, and therefore we can see clearly what they see... the obvious solution seems to be punishing the referee if they refuse to take action which could obviously have been made on the pitch. Since their introduction it appears that the broadcasters are reluctant to include the refs view in the footage unless its a 15th angle on an easy walk-in try... but on the few occasions they use it in penalties, particularly high shots, I've been astounded by how clear a view the referee has, not just on contact but intent as well... yet the tackles have just gone on report.

The more you encourage referees to make on the pitch decisions without referring to a second opinion, the more mistakes will be made. You can only eliminate some human error by using more and more technology. But, you will always get errors being made (eg. Ganson in the Hull derby at Magic) no matter how experienced the ref is.

I think that moving to the Aussie system of two refs is a must. It seems to me from watching the NRL that the support they get from each other plus the off field technology support leads them to be more decisive and make better decisions.

However if you looked at the incident in the Melbourne game on Monday the ref handled it well. It wasn't clear cut that there was intent to injure.

Saying that the ref 'cops out' is unhelpful. They are trying their level best to get it right, and do a difficult job pretty well in most circumstances.

I wonder how many people being free with their criticism have ever reffed a game? It's pretty easy being an armchair ref - you are never called to account for your opinion. As for the idea of punishing refs. They are already monitored closely enough. Start banning refs, and you have no-one left. Then no game!

All this discussion is really about the competence or the lack of gonads of the referees we have in our game. The situation is exascerbated by the muppets on sky constantly analysing the ref's performance and even having Cummins passing judgement on any borderlin decisions!

In these days of technology why not let the clubs have a pair of representatives (one playing and one coaching) and the refs review the video - providing both a judgement and a sentencing vote.

At least the views of the players and club can be taken into account as to what's important and what deserves punishment. The refs can represent the governing body.

Brian Carney also agrees with my opinion on boots n all.

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.