Super League disciplinary with 14 charged including Hull FC and St Helens trios

[Mike]

i'm glad its not just me that thinks this new system is absolutely ridiculous

at least under the old system, and the flaws around consistency, we knew that a player would get grade A-E, get a ban, and then that was that. Yes, after that there may have been an element of you have a had record, so could be charged on the higher end of the grading

however, under this you get punished, then punished again, and again, and again. So we may as well make the game tick rugby and do away with contact altogether

It is very harsh. But it at least does away with the Percival (was it him, I'm not sure) situation where he kept infringing enough to get a ban, but escaped every time because he hadn't been banned before - a good record they said! It happened like 3 times in a row!

[the pieman]

i'm glad its not just me that thinks this new system is absolutely ridiculous

at least under the old system, and the flaws around consistency, we knew that a player would get grade A-E, get a ban, and then that was that. Yes, after that there may have been an element of you have a had record, so could be charged on the higher end of the grading

however, under this you get punished, then punished again, and again, and again. So we may as well make the game tick rugby and do away with contact altogether

It is very harsh. But it at least does away with the Percival (was it him, I'm not sure) situation where he kept infringing enough to get a ban, but escaped every time because he hadn't been banned before - a good record they said! It happened like 3 times in a row!

i agree with that side of the argument i.e. you've been a good boy, so get off and repeat

however, getting banned, and then a bigger ban for another infringement just feels like double punishment, surely once you've copped the 1st ban it should be wiped clear or reduced as we want to see players on the pitch and not sat in the stands

[Mike]

i'm glad its not just me that thinks this new system is absolutely ridiculous

at least under the old system, and the flaws around consistency, we knew that a player would get grade A-E, get a ban, and then that was that. Yes, after that there may have been an element of you have a had record, so could be charged on the higher end of the grading

however, under this you get punished, then punished again, and again, and again. So we may as well make the game tick rugby and do away with contact altogether

It is very harsh. But it at least does away with the Percival (was it him, I'm not sure) situation where he kept infringing enough to get a ban, but escaped every time because he hadn't been banned before - a good record they said! It happened like 3 times in a row!

i agree with that side of the argument i.e. you've been a good boy, so get off and repeat

however, getting banned, and then a bigger ban for another infringement just feels like double punishment, surely once you've copped the 1st ban it should be wiped clear or reduced as we want to see players on the pitch and not sat in the stands

I understand that we want repeat offenders to be dealt with more harshly than one-off offenders, but I think this works out too harsh. Maybe you should lose a point a week or something like that. So Keighran if he stays clean for 5 more matches he's back to zero? Losing all your points but only after a year seems like we're going to see plenty banned for nothing later in the season.

[endoman]

This is worth a read, seems the points on the record reduce following a served ban. And the St Helens appeal tactic is clamped down on. Still need to see in action before I get close to understanding it!

https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/new ... tem-966056

"Half of points count on record when player suspended or fined. Players will see a reduction of their penalty points on their records for an offence when sanctioned for a fine or suspension. For example, if a player receives four penalty points and is therefore at a threshold for a fine or suspension, then only two points will count on their overall record over that 12-month period.

Unsuccessful appeals will be severely punished. Clubs still have the right to appeal charges, however, if they are unable to overturn it, an extra five points will be added to a player's record. That's a pretty extreme punishment on the face of it, especially when you consider there are countless examples where an appeal has been considered to have substance but still not overturned. However, that is going to be the case"

[the pieman]

Cheers Endoman

what is interesting is the different explanation from 2 different articles - 1 says that points remain, but the other says that points will be reduced by 2 after serving a ban, but also explains a whole host of other ways players will incur or get the points reduced, so seems a far better, more in detail article

I'd say i'm sort of in favour of the new process, but it needs to be tweaked as IMO a player shouldnt get a 3 game ban, do something minor, then incur a 4 game ban almost automatically. Its almost as though the RFL want players punished constantly. I also get they probably want repeat offenders punished, but there must be a better way of doing it than making them sit in the stands every week with double punishments

[Mike]

So is AK on 5 points, or 3 because he had to pay a fine?