The Ghost of '99 wrote:
The situation regarding what is happening week after week with St Helens players is becoming an urgent issue now though - it's being talked about across the game.
Is it? By who? For all the claims that we're given preferential treatment, I think we're 3rd in terms of charges and bans behind Leeds and Catalans. We've had many a ban this year and far more charges than most teams.
The successful appeals are weird though, I'll admit that.It shows that the disciplinary board itself has major problems. For a charge to be brought I thought they had to agree on it. To agree on it, decide it's a ban, then agree that they were wrong 24 hours later is bizarre. But in the end the right decision has been made. Does anyone know if it was the same people who brought the charge who then dealt with the appeals, or is it different people?
It just feels like the displinary panel is reaching and trying to hit a number, or find something in certain games. I've spotted all season that there seems to be a big trend that when there is a controversial decision going one way, they'll usually find a charge for the other team, no matter how minor. It's almost like they're trying to fend off criticism by trying to balance it. It certainly felt that way with Mata'utia's ban given the Singleton incident and how borderline red/yellow that was. How they even found that to bring the charge is beyond me, it's so innocuous. It was also that way with Lees ban, you're banning three from Catalans, so they just find something to bring a charge, even if it's just for someone running into you.
FWIW I thought Prior's ban was very harsh. For me that's fine, it's a tiny bit late but at worst it's a yellow and no ban. Jason Hooper would have had to stack shelves if these rules existing in his day. I understand what they're trying to do with these bans, but they're going too far. Everyone can tell the difference between a nasty, sly shot on a kicker/passer and a genuine attempt, except the panel it seems.
