Bans picked up during domestic games shouldn't count towards international matches, and certainly not for friendlies. It was a farce last year when James Graham could use nearly half of his 12 match ban up using the pointless international series and Canterbury friendlies. Danny McGuire is allowed to use Leeds' boxing day friendly as the one match he picked up for the chicken wing in our SF.



I quite like a suggestion I saw on Twitter yesterday, where any ban a player picks up should include the next fixture against the team the offence was committed against.

Iv heard the suggestion of that before. In theory the next time we played Leeds no Maguire and no Westwood against Wolves.



Team disadvantaged by foul play gets the benefit.



Think the only tweak you would need is in semi finals and the like. Westwood fouls a leeds player in the semis knowing that the ban wont count in the final for example. For those situations you may want to ban them for both the next game and the next time against the disadvantaged team.



Moot point right now though, RFL have got bigger problems.

Far too complicated, which means that the RFL will probably adopt it.l At the moment it's about right. I'm sure Wigan will have had players in the past who have served bans in friendly games. Whatever the system is it won't be perfect.

Westwood charged with punching, im happy with that because thats what he did..threw a punch.

As regards should he have been sent off ? Nobody has ever been sent off or sin binned in a grand final and according to the muppets on Sky "thats the way we want to keep it"......maybe the refs are under instruction not to card anyone?

Gareth Hock used a friendly as one of his games after gauging Harrison a couple of seasons ago.



I remember St Helens trying to transferring Sonny Nickle to Batley at the start of a season because their league started 3 or 4 games before SL. They thought it could count towards his ban and then just sign him back.

He's got a 1 game ban

No backbone at the RFL, how that's a one match ban I'll never know..............ummm of course nothing to do with England having a potentially weakened team against Australia

I'll use westwoods case as an example of an idea, he got put on report which should have been a sending off therefore the next time Warrington play they must only have 12 men on the pitch for the first 78mins as he should have walked in 2nd minute. Leeds would have to play with 12 players on the field for whatever time was left on the clock when he chicken winged green. I know it will probably never happen but it seems a better system than we've got at present

I'm glad he's got given a token gesture of a one game ban. I'm an England fan and I want him playing for us against the Aussies.



It highlights what a joke it is that domestic bans carry over to international matches.

Advantage to Australia.



He's an embarrassment.

A player who gets a ban should serve it against the team he offended.

Westwood should miss the next Wigan v Warrington fixture.



The game has moved on from part time players in full time employment and the disciplinary system needs to move along with the times.

SL players are contracted men, Westwood is under contract for next year so there should be no issue with the ban being enforced on him next season.



It shouldn't interfere with Internationals anyway as the precendent was set by the Aussies.

When we arrived in Brisbane in '94 for the WCC Andreew Gee was in the middle of a eight match ban. The Broncos appealed it for the Wigan game saying it was an (then) ARL fixture in which he offended and the ban was for ARL games not International ones like v Wigan.

Their appeal was successful and Gee played.

This really does need sorting out!

I've not watched the highlights yet but from what I saw it did look bad. I'm not saying Westwood's wasn't and he should have been sent off, but hey ho. That's how games go and karma was dished out so I think justice has been served





Back to the Ratchford injury, As I saw it, it did look like it was the legs but as many others have seen from the replays it was the hip/lower back. Whether it is the leg or not, I do think a late tackle anywhere below the waist should carry a penalty. If you hit the lower body in that situation the result 9/10 times will be a bad leg injury. even though he was pushing for progress I would still call it as late as he was barley moving, tackling the legs at that force when is basically stationary is a bit out of order but no doubt the tempers were flying. on the pitch we have no idea what the players are saying to each other. It's part of the game and players should expect it. BUT! As stated above it isn't illegal in superleague so Hansen wouldn't face a ban at all.



However I do think if the rule was in place then something may have been said. That's the basic point. For me it was a tad late, and a potential career ender. That's why they should be looked at more closely, that's all. Not trying to make excuses or make us seem like a team of angels because I know we are far from it. In a Wire Vs Wigan final what did we all expect? I for one am glad to see a bit of biff back in the game.



Its a hard game and these things happen, we were well beaten and I think you may have won anyway (Or the result will have been would have been tight) even with Joel ans Steph on the pitch. We went to sleep in the second half, had poor discipline and that's all there is to it.