No one appears to know why he got the ban and like i have said my husband went and quite honestly there was nothing to suggest there was a problem with a tackle,i mean murrell and fitzy were scrapping but thats obviously allowed now.

gingerspice wrote:No one appears to know why he got the ban and like i have said my husband went and quite honestly there was nothing to suggest there was a problem with a tackle,i mean murrell and fitzy were scrapping but thats obviously allowed now. Think it may have been something to do with this. Just think it's strange that after a tribunal has watched the evidence (even though you haven't and weren't there in the first place) you seem to think there was no incident at all. Still, like you say, it's probably bloody unfair. Perhaps we'll all get to see it on BootsnAll tomorrow.

gingerspice wrote:No one appears to know why he got the ban and like i have said my husband went and quite honestly there was nothing to suggest there was a problem with a tackle,i mean murrell and fitzy were scrapping but thats obviously allowed now. Think it may have been something to do with this. Just think it's strange that after a tribunal has watched the evidence (even though you haven't and weren't there in the first place) you seem to think there was no incident at all. Still, like you say, it's probably bloody unfair. Perhaps we'll all get to see it on BootsnAll tomorrow.

WormInHand wrote:Think it may have been something to do with this. Just think it's strange that after a tribunal has watched the evidence (even though you haven't and weren't there in the first place) you seem to think there was no incident at all. Still, like you say, it's probably bloody unfair. Perhaps we'll all get to see it on BootsnAll tomorrow. We all know tribunals arnt fair as you can guarantee if he appeals he will probably have the charges dropped isnt that the normal way of doing things with the RFL, because of course there will be different people looking at the evidence, and whether im there or not my husband is capable of seeing things, if a player does something wrong then fair does.

WormInHand wrote:Think it may have been something to do with this. Just think it's strange that after a tribunal has watched the evidence (even though you haven't and weren't there in the first place) you seem to think there was no incident at all. Still, like you say, it's probably bloody unfair. Perhaps we'll all get to see it on BootsnAll tomorrow. We all know tribunals arnt fair as you can guarantee if he appeals he will probably have the charges dropped isnt that the normal way of doing things with the RFL, because of course there will be different people looking at the evidence, and whether im there or not my husband is capable of seeing things, if a player does something wrong then fair does.

Like I said, it's probably all just bloody unfair. But, no offence to your husband's optical capabilities, far from nothing happening, clearly something did. And, in fact, it's gone past the point of having the charges dropped, as the tribunal has now happened and a guilty verdict reached. I'm sure Hudge the magician can work his magic to honour your guarantee that the punishment be reduced, though.

Certain the truth will out in the next couple of days.

Were actually okay as we have cover with our squad and this may be the time for Hall to show why he has been chomping at the bit to play...

Amen.

Still think its bloody unfair

tackles are that fast now do players even have time to think "hey wait a minute, i, gonna tear his arm off"
i dont know if players actually set out to deliberatly injure others, i doubt they do, but as the game is so fast nowadays some tackles happen that shouldnt. we see these grapples week in week out in S/L now, some get pulled up and some dont.