PAUL CULLEN, the chair of the match review panel, has rejected claims that some of the red cards shown in Super League this season were incorrect because players received no further punishment.
Four players have been sent off so far in the campaign, all for high tackles – Cade Cust (for Hull FC v Hull KR), Sauaso Sue (Hull KR v Leeds), Ash Handley (Leeds v Hull KR) and Liam Knight (Hull FC v Huddersfield Giants).
That none received bans afterwards under the new penalty points disciplinary system introduced this system has caused confusion among coaches and supporters.
Cust was given three points for Grade C head contact and Handley two points for Grade B head contact, while Sue and Knight received no charge from the match review panel.
The head of match officials, Phil Bentham, has admitted that one of those cards was wrongly issued – for the Sue incident, officials “misread the level of force, which would have brought it down to a sin bin instead of red”.
But Cullen has explained why cards can be issued without charges later following, with rulings of ‘sin bin sufficient’ and ‘send-off sufficient’ being used again even though these are not publicised when the RFL publish the panel’s verdicts each week.
“We have situations where a player will be sin-binned or sent off and the match review panel don’t charge,” said Cullen.
“Previously, match review had no access to a sin bin sufficient or a send off sufficient as part of our grading process.
“Look at St Helens-Leeds (at Magic Weekend) where we had the sin bin (to Lewis Murphy) for the high jump.
“The referee and video referee made the decision to sin bin the player. On Monday morning, we agreed with that and went sin bin sufficient.
“I can understand the communication of that probably needs to be a little bit clearer. But we actually agreed with the match officials – there was contact with the head and the player had left the floor.
“We noted that the player jumped, made contact with the outside of a leg on the shoulder, bounced off the shoulder, made some contact to the head – therefore it’s misconduct – player bangs his head on the floor.
“Referee, video referee, match review panel all agree it’s misconduct. We went sin bin sufficient. We assessed, was it a legitimate jump? Yes. Is it indirect? Yes.
“The referee and the video referee haven’t made a mistake. There’s contact with the head and they are within their rights to act accordingly. They thought it was worth a sin bin and we agreed – sin bin sufficient.
“When that comes through the process, it’s read as there being a disparity between match officials and match review. But we were quite happy it stayed as sin bin sufficient and it didn’t need a grade adding to the sanction the player had already received.
“The Liam Knight send-off, we thought the player flies out the line recklessly, he makes contact indirectly because we think he’s taken the vast majority of the force through the body. There is contact with the head, albeit slight. So we went send off sufficient.
“In the media it’s then said we have not agreed with match officials, but that is not the case. We agree with match officials that there was contact with the head, we didn’t like the way Liam Knight recklessly flew out the line, and if you do make contact with someone’s head you open yourselves up to match officials and match review.”
