Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:54 pm  

vbfg wrote:

Of course he was, and I fully agree that that's all he was doing. But he has a certain amount of responsibility to be aware of his surroundings too.

I know what your saying but on one angle it's pretty clear he does pull out from a full blown kick.

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:09 pm  

St pete wrote:

The was no way Jamie kicked him kicked him on purpose, the ball was there to be kicked and he was entitled to kick at him but unfortantly caught him in the head with his shin.

The 8 point try was a shocking call!

He should have sent the decision upstairs, but did they gave it? anyway it was balanced out with the first try being so forward, it is becoming a joke in our game with the flat passing the number of forward passes.

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:17 pm  

Thought he was blowing far to often for so called head shots on both sides. I'm all for cutting high shots out but FFS let the lads tackle.

I was very pleased to see lance run in and try defend Gaskell when he took that elbow, it's about time saints stuck up for there mates.

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:29 pm  

Early plea for Elima. One match it is.

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:52 pm  

i think maybe a little harsh on foster, he does seem to pull out of a full on kick, but i can still see where silverwood has come from, seeing it once and having the players wellbeing in mind.

it’s just a real shame that he does not carry this concern over to lee, it was a real late shot with the elbow and could of broken his jaw. Age or size should not come into it but a prop taking one of our smaller lads out and there’s 5 'officials' there 3 of which have a mothers meeting in the middle to decide that was ok?? JOKE

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:06 pm  

To be fair, the way he was playing you'd have probably lost by more if Foster had stayed on

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:08 pm  

SaintsFan wrote: Elima isn't eligible for the stupid 'early guilty plea' thing either as he's had bans in the last 12 months. I hope they thrown the book at him. Great that Foster's innocent efforts have been recognised but that just shows how bloody awful Silverdud is. He punishes the innocent party but leaves the guilty one alone. Yes he is. http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/12/03/19/RUGBYL_Disciplinary_Nightlead.html&BID=480

SaintsFan wrote: Elima isn't eligible for the stupid 'early guilty plea' thing either as he's had bans in the last 12 months. I hope they thrown the book at him. Great that Foster's innocent efforts have been recognised but that just shows how bloody awful Silverdud is. He punishes the innocent party but leaves the guilty one alone. Yes he is. http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/12/03/19/RUGBYL_Disciplinary_Nightlead.html&BID=480

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:28 pm  

mat wrote: Yes he is. http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/12/03/19/RUGBYL_Disciplinary_Nightlead.html&BID=480 Well fook me. He definitely got a ban last season. So we are not talking 12 months then, as stated recently, but in a season? How pathetic.

mat wrote: Yes he is. http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/12/03/19/RUGBYL_Disciplinary_Nightlead.html&BID=480 Well fook me. He definitely got a ban last season. So we are not talking 12 months then, as stated recently, but in a season? How pathetic.

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:29 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Well fook me. He definitely got a ban last season. So we are not talking 12 months then, as stated recently, but in a season?

How pathetic.

Ahem.

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:54 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Well fook me. He definitely got a ban last season. So we are not talking 12 months then, as stated recently, but in a season?

How pathetic.

he definitely didnt get a ban last year. its easy enough to check on disciplinary website.