RFL Disciplinary Process

[Errol Stock]

Have read the thread on the latest incident and how it was dealt with - its obvious that change is required.

The accusations of favouritism now are similar to those in the 80's when Wigan were the only full time club and Morris Lindsey was at the peak of his influence.

None of us on this forum can ever really know what goes on behind the scenes and therefore, the obvious inconsistences of the "trial" and the "sentence" could minimized by a review of the current publicly available system.

With regards to Hetherington or anyone else holding sway at RFL, not sure if this is the case - but if we have a contributor who can post a non libellous contradiction - looking forward to it.

Whats wrong now;

1. At "trial" - a lawyer may be involved.

2. Because of 1. above - "technicalities" come into play.

3. Video evidence is used BUT written reports from the match officials are submitted and MUST match the video or the player can escape on a technicality.

4. The match officials must write the report based on a) memory and b)their field of view in a split second. Officials cannot write a report after seeing a frame be frame analysis.

Therefore, extreme incidents can remain unpunished or have a low sentence purely down to lawyers playing with words - "technicalities" Additionally, the disciplinary panel seem to have no consistent approach to the sentence severity even though its contained within a guidance document.

I suggest;

1. The class system for offences is fully reviewed and improved.

2. Possibly change the "Class" system to a "Points" system where consistent re-offenders may be encouraged to change. This may make para 2.8 in the above link longer but more defined.

3. Get rid of lawyers

4. Allow officials to write a report and take into account what they may see on video that was missed at the moment.

6. Based on points - the offender gets a fixed number of games suspension and a fixed but high financial penalty - which must not be covered by the club - but by the offender, deducted on payslip at source.

This may mean para 2.10 in the link above having significant increases and more detail.

There will be errors in this system - but its only a start - feel free to improve it.

However, if it is clear what the PENALTY will be BEFORE an attempt is made to stick elbow into jaw at pace - there is no need for it to be so personal as it seems to be on this forum - is there?

If you look at the information published on the RFL Disciplinary web site - we are not far off. Off course we are not party to all thats said - but with some more tweaking it can improve.

[Wendall]

The accusations of favouritism now are similar to those in the 80's when Wigan were the only full time club and Morris Lindsey was at the peak of his influence.

Back then things were way more biased in favour of Wigan than now in 2010.

We have moved forwards as a sport.

[Errol Stock]

The accusations of favouritism now are similar to those in the 80's when Wigan were the only full time club and Morris Lindsey was at the peak of his influence.

Back then things were way more biased in favour of Wigan than now in 2010.

We have moved forwards as a sport.

Totally agree, as a sport we have made fantastic steps forward and I would hope that now in 2010 there is no bias in favour of any club

I confess to not realising just how much info is published on the web about the Disciplinary Process until I composed the post!

However, it still hasn't stopped the chuntering and a review may not go amiss..

[terrywebbisgod]

Ablett was given the MAXIMUM punishment allowed as laid down by the RFL disciplinary committee, so what is the problem,or are you advocating a life ban for his challenge and his challenge alone. Players from every club get away with far worse challenges week in, week out.

[Errol Stock]

Players from every club get away with far worse challenges week in, week out.

Exactly what I want to end...

"However, if it is clear what the PENALTY will be BEFORE an attempt is made to stick elbow into jaw at pace - there is no need for it to be so personal as it seems to be on this forum - is there?"

Here I failed to say personal and club - not digging at a player or a club, I have not mentioned either, trying to improve what we have..

[terrywebbisgod]

My point being a Leeds player gets a ban and now the disciplinary procedure needs looking at because he didn't get a long enough sentence(in the eyes of some people), stuff like this is never brought up when players form other clubs get sentenced(or not, in some cases)

[Griff9of13]

My point being a Leeds player gets a ban and now the disciplinary procedure needs looking at because he didn't get a long enough sentence(in the eyes of some people), stuff like this is never brought up when players form other clubs get sentenced(or not, in some cases)

Er, yes they do. I can think of at least two others from this season, O'Loughlin & Morley!

[terrywebbisgod]

Er, yes they do. I can think of at least two others from this season, O'Loughlin & Morley!

Maybe not to this extent though.

[Padge]

Our disciplinary procedures are the envy of and copied by many other sports.

It avoids legal challenges and its rare that you here clubs whinging about the outcome, supporters on the other hand will never be happy unless their favourite villain is hung drawn and quatered on the centre spot of whichever stadium it is they frequent for what to others is little more than minor push against their own player.

There is nothing wrong with the disciplinary as it functions, just because you don't like an outcome doesn't make it wrong.

[terrywebbisgod]

Our disciplinary procedures are the envy of and copied by many other sports.

It avoids legal challenges and its rare that you here clubs whinging about the outcome, supporters on the other hand will never be happy unless their favourite villain is hung drawn and quatered on the centre spot of whichever stadium it is they frequent for what to others is little more than minor push against their own player.

There is nothing wrong with the disciplinary as it functions, just because you don't like an outcome doesn't make it wrong.

Spot on.

[indomitable]

Spot on.

It reminds me of the conspiracory theories, you can make out a case to support the wildest theory's and it is hard to disprove them. The system works well, and the only ones who complain are the supporters who are directly effected. However we may criticise the management of RL I certainly don't believe that bias is given to individual supporters, and despite one or two weird decisions lately by some referees, the placing on report soon ensures justice is done

[amm]

Spot on.

Agreed

[shaun mc]

Without any club bias here from the incidents that have been referred to the most :

Ablett on Tomkins - 3 games not sufficient a tariiff of 4 to 6 is required. I can't see where a 3 game one is the max tariff allowed. If it was Championship club then I just couldn't see a player getting 3 games for the same.

J Tomkins on Myler - at last 1 game and extra penalty in front of posts

Morley on Harrison(was it?) - no charge, huge legal hit

Loughlin on Robinson - the most borderline case. Can't agree between if it was an official warning or penalty or 10 mins sin bin or all 3

Carvell on Tomkins - no charge, was backing out, a word from the ref in passing

[Dave T]

Our disciplinary procedures are the envy of and copied by many other sports.

It avoids legal challenges and its rare that you here clubs whinging about the outcome, supporters on the other hand will never be happy unless their favourite villain is hung drawn and quatered on the centre spot of whichever stadium it is they frequent for what to others is little more than minor push against their own player.

There is nothing wrong with the disciplinary as it functions, just because you don't like an outcome doesn't make it wrong.

Absolutely agree, and I must admit, after reading the OP a couple of times, I'm still not finding what the issue is...

[Bulliac]

Ablett was given the MAXIMUM punishment allowed as laid down by the RFL disciplinary committee, so what is the problem,or are you advocating a life ban for his challenge and his challenge alone. Players from every club get away with far worse challenges week in, week out.

No they don't Terry. For sure things are missed, no-one could deny that, and very occasionally something as bad as Ablett's tackle might be missed, but absolutely not every week.

FWIW, imo Ablett's tackle was a bad one, having said that, Ablett isn't a player who goes out and commits this kind of foul every week and so I would be prepared to accept that it wasn't deliberate (I've not read the official report) so I feel the three matches and fine is fair reflection of what occurred. I am a little surprised that he's appealing though.

[Errol Stock]

What I am trying to say is nothing to do with Leeds or Ablett.

Its only because that incident is freshest in mind that it keeps appearing right now.

There have been similar controversial incidents in the past and there will be more in the future..

Each time we get one - we get the same comparisons and complaints about inconsistencies.

All I am suggesting is a review of what we have to see if it may be improved.

[tim2]

Without any club bias here from the incidents that have been referred to the most :

Ablett on Tomkins - If it was Championship club then I just couldn't see a player getting 3 games for the same.

Haggerty on Barlow in the Sheffield v Widnes game was worse. They added a game to the maximum to account for the severity.

http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=1678

Barlow is now headed to the disciplinary himself for his actions against Widnes in the TV game last week for his new club Halifax

[Padge]

What I am trying to say is nothing to do with Leeds or Ablett.

Its only because that incident is freshest in mind that it keeps appearing right now.

There have been similar controversial incidents in the past and there will be more in the future..

Each time we get one - we get the same comparisons and complaints about inconsistencies.

All I am suggesting is a review of what we have to see if it may be improved.

The only controvesy is blown up by supporters.

Supporters of the culprits team will defend their player and claim any punishment is over the top.

Supporters of the victims team will want maximum retribution and then some more

Both sets of supporters will see it as contraversial whatever the outcome.

You can fiddle with the system all you want but supporters on from one side or the other or even both sides will still scream the outcome is unfair.

The present system is based on our legal system to ensure fairness and to prevent clubs making legal challenges, punishment is based on a tariff system as guidelines, the operative word being guidlines. Remove a lot of the protections that ensure players are treated fairly and allowed a fair defence and you will soon see clubs threatening legal action over decisions.

Supporters will always think they know better, they always have, I've got news for them they don't.

Footnote. A lot of generalisations in this post, I know some supporters are more open and fair minded.