You are clearly putting club bias above common sense.



How idiots like the one I've quoted are simply brushing this incident under the carpet is quite staggering.

moas' was accidental, he didn't intend to go to the head, rinaldi dipped at the last moment, bridges' elbow slam was intentional and deserves a longer ban, poor decision by alibert, (maybe he should've took a peek at the big screen like silverdud)

shouldn't you grow up!

Or it could just meant that we're not all one-eyed pillocks who'll defend our players' indiscretions with little white lies about what happened, and downright pig-headedness

You could argue that it's Wire who'll benefit - given how hot-headed Bridge has been so far this season it could mean a few less penalties given away cheaply to Leeds

Idiotic fans defending the indefensible shocker - I've seen that kind of crap spouted on this site for long enough to know that it's not a trait of any individual clubs fans, but of a sadly large amount of fans in general regardless of who they support. Edit: Usually the inane drivel of this kind of person is preceeded with statements along the lines of: "I am never biased towards my own club, I watch with both my eyes open...."



Now, if you're done tarring me with that "typical wire fan" brush of yours, can we get back to sensible debate and calling Chris Bridge horrible names instead of each other?

Find it quite funny and quite bitter that the people on here saying Bridge should have been sent off are probably the same people that were defending Tommy Lee the other week with his act of thuggery on the basis that "it was fine because he did it against that ****house Lee Briers".



It was a stupid action by Bridge and if he gets suspended, then it's his own fault.

Who seriously thought Lee should have stayed on the pitch?



It was a stupid action that should have been punished there and then. What good is a ban to Bradford?

My take on it was Bridge went to hurt the man by attacking him with the elbow. Yes there was no contact with the head but the intent to hurt was there. To say he was attempting to dislodge the ball is wrong as the tackle had been complete and its easier to dislodge with the hand rather than your forearm.



It worries me when incidents like this happen and the ref says 'Chris keep it down' were does he think he connected. The Moa one was accidental, the Tommy Lee one should have been a red and so should this.



Other than that and the usual odd alibert calls I thought he had an ok game.

I suggest you get out more instead !

Definate red card, incidents like that without punishment damage the sport, if you were a parent watching that, would you want your child to play the game, when even with the best officials and multiple cameras it isn't ' seen '?

I suggest to try to learn the difference between a 'large portion' and one or two.



So again.... can you clarify what this reputation is please?

I didn't say 'typical wire fan' - I said a large amount of wire fans; as unfortunately, a large amount are defending it, some just completely sweeping it under the carpet. I didn't suggest you or any other are part of that portion of fans; some people are needlessly defensive - yes sadly it is a large amount in general but the relevance in this thread is wire and some statements made are pretty galling.

I'll go out when you take your blinkers off.

man gets kicked in the knackers and responds by dropping the elbow into the chest... A moment of poor indiscipline that will get a 1 game ban... worse things happen on the training ground.



It's hardly 'man tries to gouge opponents eyes out for no reason whatsoever' is it?

quite ironic seeing as the wire fans were calling us a couple of weeks ago whilst defending their players angelic behaviour.

i agreed then that tommy lee should have seen red for his "thuggish attack on briers", likewise bridge should have seen red yesterday.

play hard,play tough but bridge overstepped that mark last night.

Man gets kicked in nackers?

Sure, bridge might want to think again on his tackling technique (he may have caught a stray boot but jeffries certainly didn't kick him).



...if only it was one or two, unfortunately it's more than that.

He went down using the forearm - loads of players do exactly the same thing using the shoulder after they've dropped a player. While not clever, when you watch the replay he is heading down with a straight forearm onto the chest, but hits the ball which changes his arm angle making it look a lot worse than it actually was.



It was probably as dangerous as Kevin Brown's elbow into Bridge's throat two weeks ago - which the RFL gave him a slap on the wrist for. Saying that the RFL hate us so i see a ban coming.





What i posted on the Wire forum. For what it's worth Bridge has always had a hot headed side to him. No intent to injure last night, just over aggressive defence.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the case of Tommy Lee v Lee Briers two weeks ago.



Both men should have walked but I suppose it's a form of 'refereeing consistency' which is what fans scream for.

Just like Ablett was sent off for the elbow in his face? I think not.

The majority of Wire comments on this ( including mine ) have agreed that Bridge should have walked. We have disputed calls for a 4-8 match ban, fair enough given what Tommy Lee received for a worse offence.

He said a "large amount". That's an indefinite amount so can mean anything he wants it to mean. It doesn't have to mean "majority".

I think Bridge had second thoughts on the way down and half pulled out of it imo. He should of seen red for intent and i would say one game would be sufficient for the careless way he went in on Jefferies. He didnt smack him in the head so a one game ban and a talking to from RFL and his coach will be enough imo.

I don't think bridge had second thoughts, he just missed. Luckily for his victim.



Warrington are "reverting" to the dirty, spoiling side they always used to be...

Really? The player was on the floor so it wasnt hard to hit his head if he wanted to imo.