The Disciplinary Panel

[Mike]

So you and cp have been going balistic at the club for not doing something to address the inconsistency. But you didn't want them to complain in public.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

So you and cp have been going balistic at the club for not doing something to address the inconsistency. But you didn't want them to complain in public.

Why do you have to complain in public to address the inconsistency?

What I have not been happy with is the RFL getting away with the inconsistencies for however long the new disciplinary systems have been in place. It is unprofessional and quite frankly shambolic at times.

Now I hope the people that can force a change have been trying to, if they haven't then they need to start, if they have then they need to try harder, but it doesn't need to be public.

[cpwigan]

So you and cp have been going balistic at the club for not doing something to address the inconsistency. But you didn't want them to complain in public.

Nobody thinks Ben Flower was innocent far from it. However, I as many others (from what I read) think the match officials / subsequent RFL disciplinary got it wrong primarily in terms of fairness / consistency.

My own personal opinion is that the stakeholders in the game with influence (yes fans are the biggest / supposedly influential but lets not kid ourselves) should have used a short term negative into a positive long term lasting change that benefitted the whole sport.

In order to achieve such progress requires far more than an acceptance of guilt / apologies. It requires the who incident / match to be dealt with to address every aspect that failed to then be able to move forward and make a lasting significant difference.

I have said it repeatedly, the same inconsistencies / unfairness / mistakes will happen again and again next season and beyond owing to not dealing with the real issue and not making lasting change for the better.

The key decision making stakeholders have no desire to bring about positive change and the vast majority of fans will happily forget what happened until the next incident occurs. It become pointless / farcical and the sport continues to grub around for crumbs whilst seemingly in decline.

Does that pass your sanity test

[weststand-rich]

Well the panel outcomes for Flower and Hohaia are here:

http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5848

http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5847

I don't have much issue with the Flower issue. It's been talked to death and I think the realtime game ban is about right.

The Hohaia panel is completely blank because he entered an early plea. I have real issue with that because he's got away lightly and you can't question the process. His action was premediated, he tracked him for maybe 10 seconds and made deliberate contact with the head. For his role in debacle, he should have been out for 3 games minimum and paid some of the dues.

....Otherwise the message to coaches in big games is this. Send in a shithouse to prepcipitate an incident and as long as he goes down, your opponent will go off. Sacrifice a player off the bench with a neutral interchange for a 12 man opposition.

[mickh]

That's just about as I see it Weststand, that's the future, a dangerous precident.

Mick

[cpwigan]

This was a flagship game watched by a large audience.

It should not matter what the game is etc

Even better

This Tribunal wish to make it clear that the decision taken this evening has not been influenced by any comments made during this coverage.

YET they argue

This Tribunal have no doubt that the last 3 days have been a living nightmare for this player, the club and his team mates. The player's actions have been scrutinised and as a player he has been vilified.

The actions of LH were simply not challenged sufficiently

Interestingly, such panels normally argue sent off, team lost equates to part of the punishment. Loss of a GF should add even more to that and as such the suspension is usually reduced. Not on this occasion.

An opportunity has been last to try to improve RL for the better. Maybe there is no will left in those owners that want to or simply a lack of support from other owners BUT this incident should have been a watershed for the sport. Alas, it is just another story with no positive outcome and a sport continuing to decline.

[markill]

The actions of LH were simply not challenged sufficiently

As someone has already said, he had the option for an EGP so the same process wasn't followed.

I agree a B grade was too lenient for Hohaia, but the people who made the decision on the Flower ban - the tribunal - are different people who made the decision on Hohaia - the panel. Maybe the EGP process needs reconsidering, but I've said before I don't feel it should apply to any offence above a Grade A because it does remove a level of scrutiny from the process for those B and C offences that maybe aren't getting their due consideration that the tribunal part of the process adds.

[markill]

Here's the thing I wrote on the disciplinary:

http://superleaguepod.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... eview.html

I already know some on here won't agree with parts of it based on the comments already made on these topics in the last week. Basically, as people who've read my posts in the last few days will gather, I conclude it certainly isn't perfect but it shouldn't be ripped up as the basis for a robust system is there. I go through quite a lot to get there though. 1 rainy weekend's worth of research and a disappointing need for an addition this week have gone into what you're about to rip to shreds :conf:

[cpwigan]

The actions of LH were simply not challenged sufficiently

As someone has already said, he had the option for an EGP so the same process wasn't followed.

I agree a B grade was too lenient for Hohaia, but the people who made the decision on the Flower ban - the tribunal - are different people who made the decision on Hohaia - the panel. Maybe the EGP process needs reconsidering, but I've said before I don't feel it should apply to any offence above a Grade A because it does remove a level of scrutiny from the process for those B and C offences that maybe aren't getting their due consideration that the tribunal part of the process adds.

It was not challenged via the media beforehand nor was it challenged sufficiently at the hearing. BOTH players were guilty of behaviour rarely seen on a RL pitch.

The LH ban was pure farce. It was pre-arranged / agreed. The RFL disciplinary process has always acted strangely as and when required. The classic examples are when a GB / England player is required for international duty and when a major final is pending. It was by design that Ben was suspended beyond the Good Friday match v St Helens.

[markill]

Mike and a few others have expressed the view that Wigan shouldn't have been more vocal about Hohaia's offence well enough for me. And I've already said I view one as something we occasionally see and the other, namely that second punch, as something I've never seen, so we'll agree to disagree on that.

Your second paragraph I agree with by and large. They have acted strangely at times. Maybe it's for the reasons for those decisions that need to be challenged so that they are included in the by and large very open reporting of the process. Rather than rip it up and start again. They draw a line but use by and large the same guidelines, just with a better challenge process (such as the monthly forum I've suggested in my piece) and better definition of any mitigating/aggravating factors. They also need to remove any suggestion of those being applied to the Panel stage, which removing EGPs from B and C offences could do. Like I've said, the process they have is not miles away from being robust.