I'm wondering if there is any interest in revising the discipline process for senior leagues only. There has been some talk about it not being democratic or transparent enough. It was revised last year to include an appeal option, but some people think we need to go further.

Here are some ideas:

- The Discipline Committee for the senior leagues would be made up of peers. (I have looked through the PCASA website and have no idea who is currently on the Disciple Committee.) There could be a standing committee of five current players with five substitutes when there is a conflict of interest or when one of the standing five is absent. The committee would be by nomination and vote at the AGM like any other position.

- Hearings are automatic for red card offences. Players should be allowed to have their side of the story heard and considered. (Currently you can only send a written record and have to ask and be granted a hearing for offences less than 8 games.)

The discipline process is in my opinion a mysterious process that goes on behind closed doors, often leading to some very confusing sentences. There is a discipline chart which is supposed to standardize the sentences, but the application of that chart with regard to the interpretation of the incident needs more transparency and equity IMHO.

What do you think? Other ideas of how we could improve it? I thought I'd float the idea here to see if there is a general groundswell of discontent before pursuing the matter further.