An interesting week again with the disciplinary machine and a good time to take stock, reflect on the season to date and to look at what changes might be considered to make the whole process increasingly "fit for purpose".
I lost my appeal on Monday, unsurprisingly, against a fine for speaking out against both the match review panel and disciplinary panel. I dislike the "catch all" operational rule D1.8 (c) which is basically an affront to being able to speak your mind.
Because I said the system was bust and not fit for purpose, I was deemed guilty of "conduct prejudicial to the game". This is despite the RFL producing zero evidence of prejudice be it concern from sponsors, commercial partners, other clubs or fans. The only complaints were from within and from sitting members. Is it right for the RFL to use that provision to protect the narrow self-interests of its own rather than in the genuine wider interests of the game? I think not.
I won't repeat what I said that brought me before the panel, but I won't withdraw my comments either. As a stakeholder in the game who has invested significant time and resource, I am entitled to hold a view and express it accordingly.
The current fiasco with the obstruction rule in part has its origins in the above approach. Rules overly protect match officials from scrutiny and accountability. Strictly speaking, the operational rules prevent any public comment (even positive!) on the standard of refereeing. Why is that right? Coaches and players are forced to face the music even after a car crash of a performance. Teams can miss out on a play-off spot, or cup progression, on the back of bad decisions. Why aren't officials (and their boss) more publicly accountable for their performance?
In the absence of that scrutiny, performances won’t consistently improve. Coaches therefore mistrust referees in exercising judgment, hence rules which take out that element of discretion. It ruins the spectacle and forces people away from the game.
On to Tuesday and our surprising success with Mick Weyman and turning over his two-match ban. I say surprising not because I felt the case was lacking In merit, but because of my recent (ish) experiences before the panel. Our experience this time I believe further validated those beliefs. I left the room feeling like we had been allowed to present our case properly, video footage was reviewed thoroughly (which helped vindicate the player) and the right questions were asked.
I have read a fair bit about the Jamie Peacock case and I don't think that's an inconsistent outcome. Jamie has played 500 games with no previous citations, an incredible record. There was it seems considerable provocation before the reaction. The rules allow the panel to step outside the guideline punishment in those circumstances. It can draw no comparison with the likes of say Justin Carney, who has several previous similar offences to his name, or indeed our own Justin Poore.
I think the Zak Hardaker case provides an illustration of inconsistency. Why didn't the match review panel refer him the same week as Mick Weyman with both being cases of dissent? The factual matrix was pretty simple even if the gravity of charge was more significant. The delay enabled him to play in a close cup tie, in which he scored a try. Had he been banned under normal processes he wouldn't have played. Might that have affected the outcome? Who knows.
We have had some glaring inconsistencies this year, as have other clubs. What can be more prejudicial to the interests of the game than a club who has a player or players suspended when another has players free to play despite being guilty of the same sort of action?
The easy part of all this is to complain and moan so here's my recommendations for change. Not all of these are novel, several are lifted from the NRL.
1/ Super League TV to screen all disciplinary hearings (would it help people understand why JP was given no suspension if they saw the panel at work?)
2/ Match review panel to be headed by a recently retired coach (to improve technical competence)
3/ Disciplinary panel to be able to take into account similar incidents (to ensure some consistency and uniformity)
4/ Legally qualified chairman of panel to remain but function limited to guidance on process and penalty with three side members being ex-professionals to determine guilt or otherwise. This would mean the recruitment of an additional side member.
5/ Membership of either panel be for a maximum of 3 years so that talent is regularly refreshed.
Clearly things need to change, and there is an obvious momentum building now for that to happen. Supporters are increasing becoming disillusioned with the game because of a perceived feeling of injustice and voting with their feet. We need to take steps to turn the tide and not put the telescope to our blind eye and think everything in the garden is rosy. Fingers crossed a new rule D1.8(c) charge doesn't hit my doormat next week!
