KEY POINTS:
Should Wade McKinnon have been suspended for three matches for his spitting escapade or should he have got less? Should he have been suspended at all or should he have received the 9-11 match ban the prosecuting solicitor advocated?
For me, he should have received a one-match suspension
because the importance of the next game should be taken into account. If the Warriors were already guaranteed a spot in the top eight, then an extra week would have given the sentence more punch.
McKinnon should also have been given a monetary fine of approximately $10,000, to be given to a referees' association to help in the recruitment or retention of referees.
More should be done in this area as the ref's job is hard enough without allowing spitting to go without punishment. What sort of impression would this leave on young children, or even adults, if it went unpunished?
As we all know, on Saturday mornings up and down the country, referees are the target of verbal attacks from irate parents and supporters from the sidelines of most sports fields.
We all have an opinion about referees and I never go to a game without some dissatisfaction over a referee - but to give personal, vicious or threatening abuse or actions to referees is not on and whatever steps can be taken to prevent more happening is positive.
Now the Warriors and McKinnon claim that he did not spit at the touch judge last week. Now let's be open and frank - McKinnon expressed his disappointment at the touch judge because he did not signal a forward pass in the try scored by Penrith.
He did not intend to spit "on" the touch judge; his intention was to let him know that it was a bad call by spitting in his direction.
Michael Luck expressed the same thing but with a verbal assault. What I am saying is that people react differently and this view is in no way defending anyone.
I think there was intent to express disappointment. He and the club should acknowledge this and we have seen this competitiveness before in McKinnon, so this is not a one-off occurence for him.
He must accept he was wrong and deal with it. I thought a three-match suspension was harsh, given the nature of the actions, but I am not going to be too critical of the sentence.
There would be nothing harder for a player to accept than a one-match ban and having to pay a hefty fine from his own pocket and I think this would have had more impact than the sentence he got.
The penalty for this incident compared to those handed out to players for spear tackles and other methods threatening players' personal and physical wellbeing is over the top.
The difference between losing the use of legs and arms as a result of a broken neck to having to wipe off some saliva from your jersey has no comparison.
The NRL needs to look at itself.