Doesn't sit right with me that a player has to miss a game and a half because of a reckless tackle from a defender, and their team sees absolutely 0 repercussions from it. I thought as a sport we were meant to be protecting players from head injuries but if there is barely any punishment for inflicting them then I don't see how things will change any time soon.

If your tackle directly causes a player to fail a HIA, you should also have to miss the next game. Potentially more subject to severity of the hit. I know there can be grey areas to be considered such as head clashes or a clash with a knee or something which are all accidental, but Charnleys was neither of those, it was simply a high and late challenge straight to the head. That's my opinion on it.

Another of the baffling and inconsistent decisions by not only the Disciplinary panel but the match officials when compared to the decisions/penalties on high tackles the previous weekend, with the only real difference all games were televised.

If the RFL are serious about player safety then surely the time has come for any player that is penalised for a high shot which results in an opponent failing a HIA then it should be a minimum of an automatic 1 game ban regardless.

The inconsistencies in the way the game is officiated and then in the decisions of the MRP are one of the big issues the sport has.

The only ones who are being penalised for this Charnley incident are Clifford and Hull FC. Clifford has been given the match ban.

Clifford got straight up on his feet. Eight days later he is quite obviously fit enough to play.

TBF, the mitigating factor here is the fact Clifford was dipping due to the slip, and Charnley is committed to the tackle. There was no malice or intent. Charnley was covering that space. You might find it hard to digest but, that's how the MRP saw it as well.

How on earth can you be guilty of head high tackle and not be punished?

Its as daft as saying not guilty but we are going to fine you £250 anyway

He was found guilty but the tackle was judged careless rather than reckless and the fact the Clifford 'dipped' was a mitigating factor.

Dez will probably pay the fine anyway.

He should be banned no doubt

But "player safety" is hard to do when its a contact sport and fans want the sport back to how it was a proper tough sport

Cause last few years it's turned into touch rugby

Fans want tough but also want "player safety"

So it's hard for them to win

For me I think Clifford was slipping and it was reckless rather than intentional so that's why he's been fined and not suspended but I still believe if it was on tv he would have got a sinbin