Dave Craven: Time to review the reviewers after embarrassing incidents

Hopefully, the RFL will soon undergo the same process with their match-review and disciplinary panels.

Given the events of the last fortnight, they may be due a complete overhaul.

Just when the game should be extolling the virtues of a wonderfully intoxicating play-off series, the media has instead been forced into repeated reporting on punching, fighting and alleged spear tackles all of which could have been avoided given a little common sense.

First, we had Hull FC's Lee Radford given a one-match ban for daring to retaliate after being elbowed in the head three times by Ryan Bailey.

Then, this week, we saw Leeds's Danny Buderus given the same suspension for performing a perfectly legal tackle which, through no fault of his own but sheer momentum, led to an opponent landing in a dangerous position.

Understandably, both players were aggrieved and launched appeals which they won.

On the face of it, little damage has been done. However, dig a little deeper and the picture becomes a lot more grimy.

National rugby league correspondents – fast dwindling – already have a real battle on securing column inches predominantly against the mountain of football drivel which dominates their pages.

But, given the machinations of the RFL's disciplinary process, they have found themselves filling what little space they have with discipline updates, hardly the sort of picture they would like to be painting.

After the match-review panel – which comprises the RFL's compliance manager Blake Solly and ex-players, referees and officials – met on the last two Monday mornings, Tuesday's papers saw news that Radford/Buderus had been summoned to face that evening's disciplinary; Wednesday's editions reported the subsequent one-match bans and Thursday's offerings led on successful appeals.

That amounts to six days where the national media have had to discuss issues of discipline rather than the fact the Super League season is reaching a fascinating conclusion.

In fairness, Radford automatically had to appear due to his dismissal but that should have then been immediately seen as sending-off sufficient.

However, Buderus's foul, which was rightly deemed a penalty in Sunday's game, should never have even been referred to the match-review panel.

Although classed as a dangerous throw, it was inevitably reported as a "spear tackle" which brings up some horrendous connotations of thuggery to the unitiated.

Anyone who has any knowledge of the sport – and this makes the review panel further guilty as they obviously should – knows such a crime is when a player is picked up and purposely driven back into the ground neck first, at great risk of serious injury.

Buderus performed a solid hit which, due simply to the physics involved, ended with Paul Prescott in an unfortunate position but no injury sustained.

Compare this to an incident eight minutes later when Wigan's Joel Tomkins blatantly kicks a grounded Danny McGuire.

That foul was deemed only worthy of a caution – effectively a strongly-worded letter – by the match-review panel yet it is just the sort of vicious act the sport never wants to condone.

Buderus's appeal was apparently successful due to new video evidence which showed his foul from a different angle proving it was not as bad as initially suggested.

But even an untrained eye could have spotted that from the live television images.

It is time the reviewers were reviewed themselves. Or at least given a refresher course into what foul merits what punishment.

Then they may get it right first time and avoid all the embarrassing negativity that has to follow.