Maybe, but remember Sean O'Loughlin every 10 tackles he made 10 of them were around the neck. He went up to the disciplinary once for clothes lining a player and because he had a fantastic disciplinary record in his career got off lightly with a short ban.
There are plenty of players that are tolerated but Sironen is not one of them especially when the ball player is falling to the ground and Sironen can't adjust in time. We are an aggressive team in defence and it doesn't bode well in outcomes when opposition players milk a situation, benefit of the doubt always goes to the victim.
https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/they-...ampdown-52160/
So even Cullen accepts that they're not perfect. Interesting to hear him talk about the three stages though. Whats also interesting is it also articulates to me where the problem is; that the on field referees obviously have a tonne of visibility, and whilst we might not always agree with their decisions theres a clear process pretty much everyone understands. Similarly the "judge and jury" have clear, visible guidelines, and whilst there are some complaints about the "why was this 1 game and that 2 games" - theyre pretty much standard and well understood.
Its very much the bit in the middle I have an issue with, and Cullen sort of confirms my suspicion. They have 4 people, going through 6 games on Monday.
a) why have they given themselves the arbitrary deadline of Monday? I don't think there would be any impact if we pushed the whole process back a day, and give the review panel time to not feel rushed.
b) it doesnt explicitly say it, but it infers that because they only have 4 people, only a single person will review a game, which will naturally lead to inconsistency. By giving an extra day it would allow all 4 of the panel to review all games (or at least more than one) and the issues agreed upon can then be brought forward, which would reduce inconsistency.
c) More people involved in the Match Review process would lead to better projects around visibility. It would be great to build up a library of offences, at different grades with one of the match review panel talking through why it was picked up and how it got the grading it did. We would still disagree much like we do with the refs, but at least it would feel more transparent then.
This is very interesting. If we assume they are looking at one game each and a couple of them are watching two games, perhaps we're being looked at by the same person more or less every week, hence not getting away with anything at all. Other clubs are given a more random approach and end up with the inconsistency of moving around between people. It'd be fairer if they all watched all the games and they needed 3/4 of them to agree on a charge (With no conferring) for it to be raised. That would cut out some of the nonsense ones we're receiving.
They could quite easily start the process earlier by working over the weekend for Thurs/Friday games. There is no excuse for all 4 people on the panel not reviewing every game, independently and the convening on Monday afternoon to compare notes.
Totally agree with this, it's a completely backwards process and strikes me that they just can't be arsed working weekends.
We can't strip the disciplinary process back to a bare bones approach just because 4 people only want to work a Monday. If games were reviewed over the weekend and then collectively reviewed for the raised issues on a Monday I would wager we would see a much more consistent process and that's a very very easy fix.
A video discussing some of the recent bans dished out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe4g_TCFy9M
I didn’t realise that they take into account if a player is injured when assessing the seriousness of an offence.