I'm sure the point he was trying to prove was that 'I sat you on your arse the first time and Ill do it again the second time.' Unfortunately the second time was with an illegal challenge that copped a ban which Leeds decided not to appeal against. It probably weren't deliberate though, just misjudged.

Personally i'd have give him more if he had appealed and I think Leeds realised this. ATEOTD he put in a wreckless tackle because he was annoyed at the previous decision (regardless of it's legality) and was lucky not to be sent off on the pitch.

The player saw it differently but no surprises there. The first tackle was legal though and had it not been surely this would have been discussed by the Disciplinary Committee that decided to ban him for the second?

The player saw it differently but no surprises there. The first tackle was legal though and had it not been surely this would have been discussed by the Disciplinary Committee that decided to ban him for the second?

tvoc wrote:The player saw it differently but no surprises there. The first tackle was legal though and had it not been surely this would have been discussed by the Disciplinary Committee that decided to ban him for the second? Why would it be discussed though as it was a separate incident? If anything it would have hindered his defence as he would be admitting to "seeking revenge" by using the previous tackle as motivation.

tvoc wrote:The player saw it differently but no surprises there. The first tackle was legal though and had it not been surely this would have been discussed by the Disciplinary Committee that decided to ban him for the second? Why would it be discussed though as it was a separate incident? If anything it would have hindered his defence as he would be admitting to "seeking revenge" by using the previous tackle as motivation.

If we win the Saints fans ...... (delete as applicable)

"He missed all those forward passes"
"Leeds were laying on"
"They were always offside"
"The video ref shoulda given that try"
"How did he miss that crossing"
"He should be banned for 5 matches for that"

A seperate incident that the video review panel could have included had it been an illegal challenge.

Presumably they viewed it and decided (like me) that the challenge was legal.

And this is where we came in. Bentham penalising Diskin for a legal challenge and you asking 'when did this happen?'

I know that's where we came in but then it moved on to the 2nd tackle and the fact that it shouldnt have been deemed as bad because the original decision was wrong.

And as I said IMO there was contact with the head/neck area even though the original contact was with the chest. It's just one of those unlucky moments that Diskin should have reacted better to.

If it's not a personal question, are you a referee?

You certainly appear to have the eyesight for it.

The original Diskin tackle was across the chest and never moved at all in any direction. It started across the chest and ended across the chest, it was a perfectly legitimate challenge.

Bentham got the decision 100% wrong.

No worries, as I said I cant remember the incident 100% but it doesn't excuse his next challenge does it? And if Bentham got it wrong he got it wrong. He's human. Just like a player might give a penalty away under the posts or a London based hooker might throw an outrageous pass to Amos Roberts that costs the game. Now a counter argument could be that Diskin is human too but as far as im concearned he should never have tried to put a second big hit on.

As for the 1st question, yes, I am

Good so we've established Bentham has indeed penalised Diskin in the past for no reason whatsoever then?

This diversionary what happened next was never the issue and it's you who introduced it in the first place presumably because you'd thought you'd been caught out.

A Steve Gansonesque approach if ever I saw one.