Super League and the disciplinary continue to baffle?


So both Leeds players pick up penalty points against Rovers but nothing for Sue?


Did he not make contact with the head of Lisone who had to go off for an HIA?


Handley made contact with the head of Mourgue (as per the charge) but I believe he didn?t have an HIA?


Doesn?t make sense?

We've had Laidlaw and Aydin cited for late contact on the passer. 2 incidents which I can't even remember during the game and are confident they never got penalised.
We actually got a penalty for a late hit on Litten but no Wigan player has received points for late contact on a passer.


Coupled with the post above, it really does seem like the RFL have their favourites. And while I don't want to be accused of claiming their bias and spouting rubbish, I can honestly see why people do think that type of thing.

It?s becoming a farce and in affect the RFL and disciplinary have simply rearranged the deckchairs on the Titanic. Theyve failed to address to issue with the system and the lack of consistency in both onfield decisions and the MRP along with the lack of transparency and accountability. 


For me the Sue offence was worse than Handleys yet it?s seen differently by those in the MRP. In fairness I dont think either were red but said the same with Cust. 


It all just seems as though its a case of they make it up as they go along. 

I've just watched the highlights from the Leeds - HKR game and I genuinely have no idea what the criteria for a yellow or red card is. If you'd shown me all 3 incidents and asked me to dish out a punishment I'd have given different outcomes for each one I think.

It's almost as if they realised the cust red was a crock of shiit and now dishing cards out left, right and centre to try and justify it in some way