To dispel many beliefs on here that the RFL and their disciplinary committee have it in for Salford (Marwan Koukash) I thought it would be interesting to compile a list of cumulative match bans by club.



Here are the results for the year so far that I've taken from periodic news articles on the the RFL website. Please feel free to correct me if I missed any.



Salford - 27



Catalan - 11



Hull KR - 5



Castleford - 4



St Helens - 4



Wigan - 3



Wakefield - 2



Widnes - 2



Huddersfield - 1



Hull - 1



Warrington - 0



Leeds - 0





Cue the Salford need to clean up their act posts.

Interesting.



Having watched plenty of SL games this year on Sky/Highlights as well as our own matches of course, it seems pretty baffling that other teams are getting so few. There's no doubt that some of our bans are justified but not to the tune that these stats show. We play aggressively in defense and a few bans are to be expected, but we seem to cop maximum penalties for indiscretions where as other teams are simply not getting the same punishment. I expect fans of other clubs to view things differently, but it's not difficult to see why Salford fans start to think that we're being punished for indiscretions off the field on top of everything else.

While correlation doesnt prove causation, a graph of our bans vs our owner's outbursts against the RFL management might prove interesting?

I think we've warranted some of the bans but what i don't get is how have Wigan only got 3 games between them. And Leeds & Warrington 0 something fishy going on in the RFL!

did westwood not get a ban for that high tackle v us 1st game???!!

No it was ruled Sin Bin sufficient.



As much as I agree that some offences were punishable the question is are the RFL showing more leniency towards other clubs? I just find it really bizarre that we have copped 5 more games than 10 other SL clubs combined and 45% of all SL match bans. It's got the point where you ask yourself which Salford player(s) will be cited next week.

to add to the debate: www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/32 ... discipline

to add to the debate: www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/32 ... discipline

Quote Hillbilly_Red="Hillbilly_Red"to add to the debate: www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/32 ... discipline'" Wise move by Watson to say what the RFL want to hear rather than publicly criticising them. I personally think the RFL have put out this news purposely because even they must be embarrassed by the imbalance of the numbers.

Quote Hillbilly_Red="Hillbilly_Red"to add to the debate: www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/32 ... discipline'" Wise move by Watson to say what the RFL want to hear rather than publicly criticising them. I personally think the RFL have put out this news purposely because even they must be embarrassed by the imbalance of the numbers.

Let's hope that permeates upwards!!

Maybe we could get the FBI to investigate the RFL next

Yes and we could nominate Sepp Blatter to replace big Nigel. He'd probably be more popular

I've already claimed on another thread that there is a witch hunt going on against Salford. All this does is confirm it. There is no way that Salford are any worse than any other team.

[urlhttp://i.rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=581671&p=18086776#p18086776[/url



I had it at 25 cumulative match bans in April , I get it to 28 Matches , as I've included Adam Walne's 1 match ban in the Dewsbury Friendly.



Salford have been Cited & players charged on 58 occasions this season ,42 resulting in no-charge and 16 resulting in Bans only 2 occasions resulting in no further action .



Warrington have had players cited 19 times ,only 1 leading to an charge that was found not guilty.



the issue is whether Salford are truly that vicious or the level of additional scrutiny is colouring the level of referrals

Not entirely convinced there is anything suspicious in this, but I've always felt we get treated badly by the video referee. I generally expect any decision that gets sent up of ours to be turned down.