The consistency has been poor recently. So the RFL's only real defence against claims of bias then becomes one of incompetence, which isn't great.
All leaderships or bureaucracies (whichever it is) have a finite useful lifetime. This lot rather jumped the shark with licensing IMO and some fresh blood would be good. It's not an easy job, more responsibility than power, but there's plenty of room for improvement.
Understandably chairpersons only kick up a stink if it goes against their team. In that case they make a complaint. Rather than making a t-shirt when a decision goes their way, for example.
Or saying 'we'll take that, as we've had enough go against us'. So it rarely builds up enough momentum to make a difference.
I'd like to see a few chairmen get together and make some specific recommendations.
I'm personally curious about whether allowances are made for previous good behaviour, on top of the EGP system? Whether 'missed incidents' (I mean, seriously WTF?) can be considered later when brought to the attention of the panel? Whether you can plead guilty but challenge the grading? How does the panel view the relative severity of a sin-binning or sending off vs a ban?
And how are offences bench marked?
Poore deserved a ban this week, IMO. But three weeks when Widnes get off? Similar with Paea/Flower last week and the week before. This week it should have been both, the earlier ones it could easily have been neither.
Incidents should be judged on their own 'merits', but surely not entirely in isolation.
