Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:12 pm  

Mulder wrote:

From The RFL Website
Decision Guilty
Reasons for Decision The Panel state they have watched the video carefully and given careful consideration to what they have heard. They are satisfied dangerous contact was made,and do not accept the player lost his footing. It can be seen from the video the player makes a sweeping action with his left leg, and therefore has no control of his bodyweight.

It is accepted the contact was not intentional however defenders have a duty of care when tackling opposition players.
If it wasn’t intentional why double the laid down tariff ?

Duty of care and reckless were words I expected to hear. I agree to a small extent. A match was tops what it was worth on them grounds and taking into account it's early season and they tend to want to lay a marker down. All that said had injury not occurred then I doubt the match review would of found anything to cite in the first place. 4 is ridiculous n rovers actually have my sympathy. I'd be going mental if it happened to us

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:26 pm  

Pickering Red wrote:

What an idiotic and provocative load of mock indignation shizzle from a darksider. In future when I read your occasional posts, they might go straight into my king-size dick head folder, if you keep spouting this sort of cods. I was at the game behind the posts in our North Stand and I watched the tackle from behind no more than 50 yards away. I have also seen the same video footage side on as you and everyone else several times.

Please explain to the rational and fair minded posters on here, how you can classify Boudebza's 3rd man tackle as a "deliberate" attempt to end Shenton's season? To do so beggars belief. As if that wasn't bad enough, you then attempt to varnish your provocation by saying he did it "with such wild abandon." Are you saying that he should refrain from tackling a player in a contact sport who is still moving forward and when the tackle isn't fully completed?

We all feel for Michael Shenton and hope he makes a successful and speedy recovery.

It seems a lot of impartial observers view the tackle outcome as unintentional. I can only assume your posted nonsense is derived from a judgemental vision based on who you support.

Dont take hull smallbrain seriously,nobody else does.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:42 pm  

Jake the Peg wrote:

4th best ever actually

Couldn't agree more Rolfie. 1980, 1983 and 1985 were much, much better.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:58 pm  

imo very unlucky to cop a ban

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:11 pm  

Well at least if this something The RFL are cracking down on, Wigan are likely to have half their team missing through suspension most weeks.... Oh wait.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:26 pm  

Even Steve Clarke on Sky doesn't think the tackle was illegal. Says it all really. Shame for Shenton and Cas, they won't make the top four without him.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:33 pm  

Grimsby Red wrote:

Even Steve Clarke on Sky doesn't think the tackle was illegal. Says it all really. Shame for Shenton and Cas, they won't make the top four without him.

Is steve clarke some kind of rl guru?

Good job they banned the guillotine in france or french john could have been for the chop

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:47 pm  

You watch appeal will give him 5 matches.

ps
Had to watch it a few times just to see which tackle it was, feel for the Cas kid but not sure that was 4 matches myself.

You see those tackles every week but I guess they are okay when they don't injure a man

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:49 pm  

Ban Upheld. RFL = Joke

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:21 pm  

Pickering Red wrote:

What an idiotic and provocative load of mock indignation shizzle from a darksider. In future when I read your occasional posts, they might go straight into my king-size dick head folder, if you keep spouting this sort of cods. I was at the game behind the posts in our North Stand and I watched the tackle from behind no more than 50 yards away. I have also seen the same video footage side on as you and everyone else several times.

Please explain to the rational and fair minded posters on here, how you can classify Boudebza's 3rd man tackle as a "deliberate" attempt to end Shenton's season? To do so beggars belief. As if that wasn't bad enough, you then attempt to varnish your provocation by saying he did it "with such wild abandon." Are you saying that he should refrain from tackling a player in a contact sport who is still moving forward and when the tackle isn't fully completed?

We all feel for Michael Shenton and hope he makes a successful and speedy recovery.

It seems a lot of impartial observers view the tackle outcome as unintentional. I can only assume your posted nonsense is derived from a judgemental vision based on who you support.

I was being sarcastic, as I think that MR alluded to. FWIW my opinion is that there was nothing in it. (from a deliberate or intentional perspective) Clearly as well it is a natural reaction and indeed the intention of the game to get the player down. 4 games is harsh, would never have happened to a popular club. That said, you can understand an emotive response when a club captain is injured for the season. I guess something needs looking at re third man, but I am at a loss how it could be policed.
When I read your occasional posts in future, I will bear in mind (as i have seen prior evidence also of) your penchant for the dramatic and vitriolic over reaction. Must be something to do with living in a village, but don't take it out on the rest of us.