Problem is that the panel's qualifications or otherwise don't appear to address the clear inconsistency in the way the disciplinary system operates. It's nothing new, there are two issues, one is the inconsistency of how similar offences are punished, the other is how some offences don't even get to that stage.



We need a much more open system of citation and graded punishments, with explanations not just for why some offences attract punishment, but for why the same/similar offences don't attract punishment. If a cheap shot punch isn't worth a ban then so be it, that's the precedent, if a headslam is worth 2 games then so be it, that's the precedent.



If the disciplinary system was forced to explain why they don't even consider some things, or are inconsistently lenient/harsh then I strongly suspect that inconsistency will start to fade out.

Never siad they did mate, GF called there qualifications into question, I understand these panels are made of two ex-officials who have served the game in a senior capacity and a barrister.



As for consistency, I'm with you there.

On the subject of quins appearing to get a raw deal from the panel, I do think it's in part due to the fact Brian Mac & the player(s) concerned only seem to make their representations by telephone. I didn't hear whether or not Clubby went up before the panel in person this time.



With other clubs being closer it is far easier for them to appear before the panel in person and I think (rightly or wrongly) it does make a difference. Particularly when determining "intent".



If Brian Mac was a better orator & made the effort to present his case in person, then I wonder if we would start to see some of the apparent bias dissipate?



In general though, the disciplinary panel is a joke - I don't buy the club/player bias comments but the decisions do definately depend on which side of the bed they get out of/which way the wind is blowing etc etc etc.

He was trying to make space to play the ball as the Wakey player was lying on as they had been doing all night, there was nothing in it, and both Kear and Potter have agreed with that, 2 highly qualified coaches who have both played the game to decent levels also. It was split second thing, no malice whatsoever and KC has a great disciplinary record. Agreed, you shouldn't strike out in a tackle but he is not the only player to have got off without a ban this season for it, look at Lee Smith earlier this season and also Tomkins. Stosic was fine to play the next week.

Beg too differ.....5 times this season he has been up for review of an incident...in 5 different games. In 22 games, that's a 22% hit rate. He may well be found not guilty all the time, but there's no smoke without fire. The first two this season were for the same offence.....but no charge. The last 2 were for high tackles on players, both taller (considerably taller in Tamata's case)...again no charge and the one in the middle for a deliberate attempt to strike the face but not the eye....WTF



Sorry.....but once your bubble burst and you're no longer one of the elite clubs you will see exactly how myopic the Disciplinary procedures are. Either KC is very clumsy and therefore not as good as you all make out, or he's a dirty player.....either way, makes no difference as he plays for Saints

and is therefore considered untouchable

So how long will Eastman be out of the game?

He'll play friday



Unless this strange attack of the measles comes back..

Exactly and if my memory serves me right didn't he carry on with the game after a bit of attention. RFL need to be more consistent

Intent can be as bad as actually damaging someone. That little scrote from Wigan wasn't injured when Howell polished his teeth with his elbow-other than hurting himself by diving at the floor like a bloody actor

Totally agree WQ

And then jumping straight back up to push Howell's head into the ground!



No charge for that of course.

or his gob sh*te brother diving in with the knees