Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:02 pm  

He was very lucky to get away with it on the day, it was a terrible challenge. When showed from the reverse angle, you could see he actually speeded up after the ball had gone, and smashed the forearm/elbow into the face.

Gaskell not getting injured or making a meal of it, will probably have limited the the punishment.

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:35 pm  

rlcoach wrote:

Gaskell not getting injured or making a meal of it, will probably have limited the the punishment.

thats also part of the problem, because if the players believe this then it starts to go down the football way and players staying down.

red hall and the man on the feild need to look after players to stop it before it starts

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:18 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.

Mmm when has Elima had a ban in the last 12 months ? I can`t believe you come out with that rubbish, yes fair enough he deserves a ban. He was late, no doubt about that You don`t see us Bulls fan ranting and raving about Foster kicking whitehead in the head and asking for a ban.

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:22 pm  

Saint_Claire wrote:

Just a pity that the ref didn't manage to see it the same way!

Just like fosters kick to the head on whitehead

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:23 pm  

clared wrote:

You don`t see us Bulls fan ranting and raving about Foster kicking whitehead in the head and asking for a ban.

Quite simple really why you haven't: he doesn't deserve a ban for it.

Elima on the other hand does.

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:33 pm  

Albion wrote:

Quite simple really why you haven't: he doesn't deserve a ban for it.

Elima on the other hand does.

let me get this right, being abit care less and pulling out of fully kicking a fellow player in the head is NOT the same as lineing up a player and smashing them late and making contact with their head with your elbow

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:35 pm  

Albion wrote:

Quite simple really why you haven't: he doesn't deserve a ban for it.

Elima on the other hand does.

Yes Elima does, not denying that.

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:11 pm  

clared wrote:

Yes Elima does, not denying that.

Foster has not been charged with any offence, he was cleared of any wrong doing
The Ref got it wrong by putting him on a charge and giving the penalty under the posts. You got 2pts for nothing.

You also beat a pretty crap team.

Re: Elima Charged : Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:15 pm  

wirefox wrote:

You also beat a pretty crap team.

im glad wire fans are not kicking us while we are down, 'pretty crap' is a understatement

Re: Elima Charged : Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:09 am  

wirefox wrote:

Foster has not been charged with any offence, he was cleared of any wrong doing
The Ref got it wrong by putting him on a charge and giving the penalty under the posts. You got 2pts for nothing.

You also beat a pretty crap team.

I can smell the Bullshit from here (across the pennines)

It was a penalty. If it happened at the 50 yard line it would be a penalty and if it happened at the in goal it is a penalty. I am struggling to see why you can't grasp that.

A player attacking the head of a payer in the act of grounding a ball (whether intentional or not) is a penalty, and, thus, an 8 point try. Simples.

Also, Although it could be argued that Bradford beat a poop team. It actually seems like Saints were beat by a poop team that was missing 12 players and hadn't won at home all season. oops!