www.therhinos.co.uk/news/19975.php Hope they dont play him at wembley or again, the changed back line has been working well and doesnt need changing which was proved on monday.

www.therhinos.co.uk/news/19975.php Hope they dont play him at wembley or again, the changed back line has been working well and doesnt need changing which was proved on monday.

And Wilkes gets one match for his on Burrow. I really despair at the judiciary at times. Webb was unlucky, Wilkes was well aware of what he was doing.

yes but wilkes does not play for leeds thats why he only got one match

Webbs history may have preceded him coupled with the fact he was off his feet at the point of impact may have made his suspension worse.

^
this

You really are having a laugh arnt you!

Webb was airborne when he hit Kirmond. Burrow could barley get up to Wilkes neck, they were chalk and cheese and quite frankly it Webb should have gone and if the precedent is now set for putting the shoulder in then players should be sent off based on this Wilkes should also have walked.

People like you absolutely infuriate me.

Whilst i agree Webbs past deserved to be considerd that doesn't justify Wilkes only getting one game even with a squeaky clean record he hit Burrow high and late whilst he was static and once again the judicary are shown to be a bunch of inconsistent pillocks!!

They were both charged with the same offence.

In my mind, they were both as bad as each other but for differnt reasons Webb for jumping and follow through and Wilkes for high and late.

Therefore in my mind they should have got the same ban. IMO Previous convitions should only come in for foul play, biff chickenwings etc rather than these incidents that can often be put down to bad luck or poor execution rather than acctually being dirty.

But it is inconsistency which is the problem, not just from the beaks, but also the referees, because given the new stand on the shoulder charge that we have seen this year they both should have walked

So, Brent Webb not allowed to jump to charge down the kick and Kirmond's motion took him into Webb. Webb has turned away and there was nothing deliberate about the contact.

Unlike Wilkes.

Can see where you're coming from there, but part of me dosent buy the charging down,Webby has always favoured throwing himself at an opponent rather than tackling.

50/50, but if it was an intended shoulder charge. Which only Webb knows 2 games is a bit harsh. I staed elsewhere both should have got one match and I stand by that.

However of the 2 it was the one from Wilkes that seemed more malicious and was certainly less accidental

Disappointing - I was hoping for a ban until the end of the season so there would be no danger of him featuring at first team level again at Leeds.

I think they're both fair. I thought Webb was lucky not to get a red on the night. It's foul play like that which makes people think the shoulder charge is dangerous.

Iirc all those sent off for use of the shoulder got one game. Webb got an extra one because of his bad record. Can't get anymore consistent than that

I think we should appeal and try and get him longer

Brent Webb has played for us for 6 seasons and been an integral part of 4 championship winning squads. One poor display and our "fans" are showing their true colours.

No wonder our "fans" have such a ty reputation. It's well deserved.

Puletua got sent off and a ban and I don't think his was as bad as either - certainly no worse. The RFL are so inconsistent, as are the referees it's a joke.

much as I disagree with people hoping he's played his last game for us, he's had more than a few bad games. He's well past his best and I hope that when picking the team for important games the coach picks on form and not reputation

Whilst I don't fully agree he's had more than a few bad games (comparatively to the rest of his team mates) or that he is well past his best your post isn't something I would criticise if it's your opinion.

What irks is the "character" of someone who would express the sentiments shown on this forum towards Webb. Those same "characters" probably expect undying loyalty from the players they cheer one week and deride the next.

He's no longer the best player at the club in his position. He's already indicated he is leaving at the end of the season. If Monday was indicative of his attitude between now and then - petulant, half-hearted and ineffectual - then the team is better off without him.

Based upon what? Hardaker's form in five or six games? Lets remember hardaker's learning curve at centre.

With no Delaney or Ablett it made perfect sense to select Webb on Monday. It didn't work.

There's plenty of rugby still to be played and I am glad we still have a player with his abilities available for selection should he be needed.

Hardaker may well be looking good at Fullback, but will we be bale to fill the void of attacking creativity left by his absence? He is probably our best half back

The following are the Panel's reasons for the difference in the suspensions for Webb and Wilke


=#FF0000Webb
Player plea Guilty

Summary of Player's submissions on the Charge / evidence

Player unable to attend-represented by Head Coach Brian McDermott. Player unable to attend due to illness. Coach pleads guilty on behalf of player. Coach concedes player had time to pull out but continued with shoulders and elbow and made contact with opponents head-can’t defend his actions. There was an obvious risk of breaking opponents jaw. Player indicated he wanted to stop the play.

Decision Guilty plea.

Aggravating Factors Potential for serious injury


Reasons for Decision

Having viewed the DVD this was a bad challenge where the shoulder/elbow of a player made contact with opponents head area. It was a reckless challenge and had the potential to cause serious injury as conceded by the players coach. The tribunal accept the refreshing and frank submissions made on behalf of the player and take into account the guilty plea. The player does not have a good previous disciplinary record. Taking into account all the circumstances this tribunal feel that a 2 match suspension and £300 fine is appropriate

Suspension 2 match

Fine £300



=#FF0000Verdict on Wilkes


Reasons for Decision

The tribunal have viewed the DVD very carefully several times and are satisfied this was misconduct and find the player guilty. The tribunal believe that contact was avoidable and the appropriate tackling technique was not present. The tackling player has a duty of care to his opponent at all times and in the tribunals opinion on this occasion got it wrong. The tribunal are satisfied there was an element of recklessness but nothing intentional.

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction

One appearance last year but prior to that after a poor start in his earlier years the player has improved his disciplinary conduct considerably



Aggravating Factors Potential for serious injury

Reasons for Decision

The tribunal take into account the submissions made by the player and his representative and note his recent reasonably good record having played in the forwards for 14yrs as a professional. Taking into account all the circumstances this tribunal feel the least sanction that can be imposed is a 1 match suspension and a £300 fine.


Suspension 1 match

Fine 300

Fair play to McDermott in doing little to get his player off the charge. It's almost as if he didn't want him available for selection.

Webb can thank poor Leeds defence for allowing Kirmond acres of room and so early in the match. I trust Jones-Buchanan has more success rounding up his chickens.

By "doing little" do you mean the "the tribunal accept the refreshing and frank submissions made on behalf of the player and take into account the guilty plea" ? And and if so do you think these were not discussed with Webb before hand?

Are you suggesting Webb was innocent of the charge? or is this sort of foul acceptable to you as otherwise it is "sanitising" the game in your view!

Would you prefer to see our coach say black is white in the light of the video and officials evidence and lose all credibility? Remember Webb pleaded guilty as charged and had no mitigating circumstances to report. At least our head coach took time out to attend on behalf of the player and perhaps in retaining his integrity he will be listened to sympathetically on future occassions.