The RFL felt guilty for the ban he received (2 match).

Because they make it up as they go on.

Compare Matty Bowen head high shot to for example Tanseys push on the ref.

I aren't suggesting Tanseys was guilt free but 3 matches for that and none for that high shot???madness!!!

Now throw in Collis who even the Bulls fans though was harshly treated!

It doesn't prove or disprove anything apart from the erratic nature of the whole process!!

pretty much echoed my thoughts Kinley.



Ban first, warn second. Brilliant.



banning Tansey I can't argue with casue it's been done before - but fining the lad £300 as well? That's just robbery.



Why don't they just sue him for whiplash and have done with it

I don't agree with the Tansey part.

I posted this on the Cas forum but the high shot is something that can happen either on purpose or by accident because the tackle is part of the game. It has to be assessed.

A push on the ref is not part of the game and should be treated seriously.

You are not comparing harm to the receiver, you are comparing importance and likelihood in the game.



For me a head shot needs dealing with but there is a range of bans that could apply to different circumstances. The ban for a push on the referree has to be a major deterant from even trying it.

Tansey deserves the ban. Whether the individual head shot deserves more is debatable.

Because each incident is treated on its own merit? It's likely to second one is considered either accidental or minor whereas the original one was considered more serious.



Is all "dangerous contact" the same?

Should all high tackles just have a uniform punishment for example? Of course not because there are degrees of seriousness/intent etc

If you push a ref in a amateur game you'd get more than a couple of games.



Its a no no.

course he could plead as steve renouf did when he shoved an aussie ref to the ground that he was having a hypoglycaemic episode as a result of his type 1 diabetes and was rushing to get some sugar ..... and I am nearly sure renouf got off with it

That was the point i was making (or trying to).

Accidents happen in rugby but recklessness should be punished accordingly and 3 for pushing a ref would to me say that head shots at speed and with intent should be higher...unless your'e playing in the WCC the following week obviously.

Len Casey got months (can't remember what it was) and lost the GB captaincy and the tour to Australia for pushing a touch judge.



Even though I felt the TJ deserved it for going on at him after he'd been sent off, rules is rules.

I know of a certain player (saying no names) getting a lifetime ban for kicking the referee in the ballacks playing for Sharlston.



I think in terms of "pushing the ref" yes I know Tansey is not the first to be banned and I do not think it should be shrugged off. But the variable for me is the level of "recklessness" .....is pushing the referee reckless and potentially dangerous? no. Is hitting someone high reckless and potentially dangerous? yes.



Obviously we are talking about match officials here who should never receive physical contact.



But on this incident, IMO Roby was out of position and got himself in a position where contact was almost inevitable. Tansey had to make contact to get accross, otherwise the referee would've impeded the defence.



Was the level of contact excessive? In honesty, yes it was. Though while focussing on the oncoming attackers, I'm not sure whether he was even aware of the force he'd used.



The punishment is in line with Bailey's of 2 years ago which is fair enough, but I think the face value of the incident upon reflection is far more serious than the split second occurrence itself.



...back to Pocket4's point on Collis, I can see where you're coming from. But the term "warned over future conduct" nullifies your approach there, IMO. If he commits the offence again to the same extent will he get another warning in line with the current one?



If you get warned for doing 38 in a 30 zone, would the same police officer warn you againif he caught you the week after?



Surely when issuing warnings, previous records of the player needs to be taken into consideration. If the RFL felt 4 games ago that he should be banned for dangerous knee contact, then surely a warning for future conduct carries absolutely no significance, considering his past conduct shows he's prone to it.



It's a funny un

Correct.



My theory on this matter is the RFL spin a roulette wheel with; Warning, 1 Game ban, 2 Game ban, 3 game ban whichever the ball lands on is what the player gets!



Perhaps a bit of consitancy wouldn`t go a miss from our sports "Proffesional Body" ?

This may be more like getting caught doing 38 so you get points but the second time you get caught doing 32 and are let off with a telling off because it is marginal and within a certain tolerance. Seems a perfectly reasonable thing to me.



I think the RL judiciary system is quite difficult to follow and this why fans are often left scratching their heads or crying foul of favouritism in certain cases.