Where have I said it was ok because he broke his ankle? I have said no such thing. I don't even think he has broke his ankle.

Only you are trying to look for something not there. I pointed out the refs perspective, and to the rules he did it by the book. If you can't see that then I suggest you read the rules.

For the record I don't agree with the rules, but that is irrelevant.

^Broken^

not only that but he would need to have thought McGuire was faking injury from an offence he had already concluded happened. He saw the twist and signalled he had seen it and sent Sneyd off for it then decided that having your leg twisted to the point of causing injury wasn't justification for trying to kick the player causing that injury off.

If the referees are happy with such a situation then I would have every player do it every tackle next week. 10 mins in the bin and you either get to take a player out through injury or they are also sent from the field.

is this a different Gotcha?

What you are looking for I do not know. But you seem to be digging a little hole.

There was one view from the refs perspective that I said, then my view which is different that the ref should have used his head on realising there was an injury. Not a specific injury, an injury.

Everyone's just following Issac Luke's example. What did he get for the one on Chase, one game wasn't it?

Away from that incident, how good was Ryan Hall's pass between his legs from the drop by the Hull player that led directly to our third try scored by Keinhorst?
Re the substitutions of Aiton & Sutcliffe. No issues for me there. Aiton went off & Sinfield came on to replace him at hooker & dummy half. But Sutcliffe got a bang on his knee that he couldn't run off meaning he had to be subbed, that meant Sinfield had to go to No 6 so Aiton had to come back on as hooker & dummy half. Just an unfortunate set of circumstances.

In my opinion yes. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? I'm guessing from your condescending tone you disagree. That is fine and is your right. Oh, and don't assume that sentence means I accept your view that he was at fault for two tries, just that even if he was, he did more than enough during the rest of the game to justify my opinion.

But my opinion isn't left field and I have substantiated by reference to his prodigious defence and attacking prowess. It's certainly not as left field as the opinion you gave about yesterday's man of the match at the ground, Keinhorst. "Never make a Super League player" wasn't it? How many super league games has he played since that prognostication?

Oh, and by the way, I think he did get the ball down over the line.

It was good but, for me, the pass of the day was McGuire to Hall in the build up to McGuire's try. That was a peach.

Don't disagree, but I liked the comedy value of Hall's pass.

I don't know about that too far away to see from the Carnegie Stand but the poor thing about it was against a player so much smaller than him he should have been able to get the ball down without leaving any doubt in the official's minds.
Fortunately in this instance it didn't cost us. But he did show good pace to get to the line, more than he's shown in other recent games.
Pity he & Keinhorst couldn't have made better efforts to stop Thompson's somewhat soft effort for their first try.

Well enlighten us then, why were they not his fault? clear as day the first try, and he didn't do his job for the Houghton one.

Actually what I said two years ago on Keinhorst was that that he would never make a Super League centre. However, hands up because I actually thought he had done a decent job at centre the previous two games, so I can't exactly say different here. Then again though I have seen plenty players look good over a few games and then nothing.

Oh, and by the way, I also thought he got it down. However, it was a poor effort to leave it with any doubt whatsoever. And not the effort of the best player.

The alternative being that providing a player fakes injury following a foul it's then ok to deliver a kick to someone's face? It's only a matter of time before all the players are doing it.

FWIW I think Hicks dealt with it fairly well. Hand on heart, how many on here appreciated how serious McGuire's injury was at the time?

It became clear after the dust settled, when he was being helped off. At the same time Hicks was sin binning a clearly injured McGuire.

To be honest that's kind of the point I'm making. The seriousness of the injury is irrelevant. Hicks knew what Sneyd was doing he knew he was applying pressure and twisting the joint, he knows that is likely to cause pain and is dangerous. It's not a great leap of faith to understand why McGuire reacted as he did injury or none at all

I'd add that if you are twisting joints and rolling ankles and you take a kick to the face for your troubles. Meh. Perhaps don't do it?

No need. As I have said, even if they were, he still did enough, in my opinion, to be the best player on the field. So why have a needless debate?

If he got it down, as you and I thought, it was a poor effort by the poor referee. Ablett's job is to ground the ball. We both think he did. There's no extra style points for how he does it. The referee's job and that of his helpers, is to make the right call. IF the ref was right and you and I were wrong maybe it was just a fantastic effort by their full back after what was a superb break by Ablett. Why is it that because the we think the referee didn't see the grounding that detracts from Ablett's display?

Sneyd up on a grade D dangerous contact charge. If found guilty 3-5 match ban

I don't want it to get lost in the wash but a 10.27 average carry for a back rower is very impressive. better than Hardakers average who, of course, has the luxury of his kick returns.

Best metres per carry of any player from either side, and a defensive effort only beaten by the respective starting hookers.

Another 50-tackle effort from Houghton, he really is turning into the new Malcolm Alker.

Does that most weeks, has been excellent in recent weeks, I'm glad the reported interest from Leeds came to nothing, such an important and underrated player for us.

Ablett is the most underrated player (by non Leeds fans) than any other player in the league IMO, always plays well against us.

Looking at the stats, the main different between the two teams, were errors 16-9 and the metres you made per carry, should be a good game on FRiday.

Ablett moved the ball to his right side which is where the defender was coming from. For the life of me I can't see why he didn't fend with the right and ground with the left

When is the punishment going to fit the crime?

At best mags has some sprained ligaments which is what, a min of 2 - 4 weeks. At worst it's a serious ligament injury or broken which is possibly the end of his season.

IF guilty sneyd will get max 5 matches. Hardly seems just if mags injury is serious. Smacks of the Ferres incident earlier in the season.

If the rfl seriously want to stamp out the truly nasty stuff that happens very occasionally (thankfully) the punishment must, as a minimum last as long as the injury does.

I agree...at least as long. If pre-meditated or without excuse (as this was) then even if it's a career ending injury the rule should apply: might make the possibilities of it happening again that little less likely .

No he doesn't he catches the ball in his right hand & as he approaches Shaul he eventually transfers it to his left hand but not quickly enough to get a really good hand-off into Shaul's face.

Sorry Tad but I beg to differ. Ablett took the ball and was always carrying it in his right hand. As he approached the line Shaul was converging so Ablett switched the ball to his left hand and fended off with his right. Shaul made an excellent job of turning Ablett as he was trying to fend off and he managed to pull him on top and stop him grounding. Good play from a promising fullback.

You can't expect to see straight if you keep drinking that Taddy beer.