: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:05 pm  

Le Tigres wrote:

Yet Cunningham gets off with nearly breaking someones eyesocket.

What a bunch of drama queens you Yorkshire lot are! Stosic is going to be playing for Wakey at the weekend. He had no fracture or break. There's no such thing as 'nearly breaking' a bone! Presumably he might have a shiner when he plays. But if he doesn't, you might just consider that the whole thing wasn't anywhere near as bad as some people would like to believe!

Oh, and PS: Fa'as was banned for one match earlier in the season for a chicken wing tackle. So you see we get bans as well!

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:11 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

:roll: What a bunch of drama queens you Yorkshire lot are! Stosic is going to be playing for Wakey at the weekend. He had no fracture or break. There's no such thing as 'nearly breaking' a bone! Presumably he might have a shiner when he plays. But if he doesn't, you might just consider that the whole thing wasn't anywhere near as bad as some people would like to believe!

Oh, and PS: Fa'as was banned for one match earlier in the season for a chicken wing tackle. So you see we get bans as well!

i'd agree with cas fans. cunningham took a cheap shot at a guy while he was getting up. it was blatent for all to see, yet gets nothing. ferris gets 1 match ban for atackle no one remembers. it stinks.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:20 pm  

cool4kats wrote:

i'd agree with cas fans.

Well of course you do! Everyone does! Because Cunningham plays for Saints and at all costs, Saints must be stopped. However, of all our players, I would say Cunningham (and Wellens is another) is so NOT a cheap shot player. Wilkin, yes; Cunningham, no. Everyone who accuses him of that is talking out of their arris.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:31 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Well of course you do! Everyone does! Because Cunningham plays for Saints and at all costs, Saints must be stopped. However, of all our players, I would say Cunningham (and Wellens is another) is so NOT a cheap shot player. Wilkin, yes; Cunningham, no. Everyone who accuses him of that is talking out of their arris.

get over yourself you sound like a wigan fan,i can assure you nobody in cas gives a flying one about saints as where no threat to you neither is wakefield,what cunningham did deserved a ban and your right he`s not a cheap shot bloke but that shouldnt be enough to give him emunity from ever getting a ban.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:31 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Well of course you do! Everyone does! Because Cunningham plays for Saints and at all costs, Saints must be stopped. However, of all our players, I would say Cunningham (and Wellens is another) is so NOT a cheap shot player. Wilkin, yes; Cunningham, no. Everyone who accuses him of that is talking out of their arris.

That old chestnut. Someone disagrees so they must be against Saints. I'm not fussed about Saints and their success, fair play to them.

I just don't see the equality in the system where Player A can get away with punching someone in face deliberately, regardless of injury or not, whilst player B gets cited and banned for an accidental high tackle with no maliciousness intended and a fairly good previous record.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:41 pm  

Fully wrote:

I just don't see the equality in the system where Player A can get away with punching someone in face deliberately, regardless of injury or not, whilst player B gets cited and banned for an accidental high tackle with no maliciousness intended and a fairly good previous record.

Cunningham has a very good record. Also, he didn't 'get away with it'. He got a formal caution. That's on his record for the next three months, which means that if he does anything wrong again, he could well get a ban (where he might not have done had he not had the caution on his record). The RFL stated that they were giving Cunningham the benefit of the doubt where intent was concerned. They believe he did not intend to hit the eye but they did call the action reckless, which it was. It was a reckless action borne out of frustration. Had the RFL believed Cunningham had been aiming for the eye, which would have been a malicious thing to do, then he would have been banned.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:01 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

:roll: What a bunch of drama queens you Yorkshire lot are!

oh would I like to see the roses games back on

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:16 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Cunningham has a very good record. Also, he didn't 'get away with it'. He got a formal caution. That's on his record for the next three months, which means that if he does anything wrong again, he could well get a ban (where he might not have done had he not had the caution on his record). The RFL stated that they were giving Cunningham the benefit of the doubt where intent was concerned. They believe he did not intend to hit the eye but they did call the action reckless, which it was. It was a reckless action borne out of frustration. Had the RFL believed Cunningham had been aiming for the eye, which would have been a malicious thing to do, then he would have been banned.

Ferres's was reckless. He did not intend to hit the head. So it's still the same thing dressed up.

The only difference is that one was deliberate, the other wasn't. The latter got the worst punishment. It's unfair.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:17 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Well of course you do! Everyone does! Because Cunningham plays for Saints and at all costs, Saints must be stopped. However, of all our players, I would say Cunningham (and Wellens is another) is so NOT a cheap shot player. Wilkin, yes; Cunningham, no. Everyone who accuses him of that is talking out of their arris.

It was a cheap shot Friday night the fact that he is not a 'cheap shot player' hardly makes it ok.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:57 pm  

I honestly can't believe Cunningham got away with a deliberate punch to the face. Even more unbelievable is that excuse that "he did not mean to contact with the eye"!. Does that make head-high takcles legitimate as long as they don't contact with the eye?