[iSo you now think that Cunningham didn't intentionally hit the Wakey player at our place earlier in the season then? I seem to remember people on here thought he deliberately tried to damage his eye ... [/i

I seem to recall my opinion was it was he lashed out in temper but that is part of the game. I don't think he hit his eye on purpose, but I think he lashed out on purpose and he happened to get him in the face.

[iNot a poor tackle. That is indeed a fact, but he wouldn't have gotten a ban for a poor tackle. It was an illegal tackle as he placed too much pressure on the shoulder joint which, if you look elsewhere in my copious postings on this issue, is the point I thought was relevant. [/i

Ok, I am not going to do semantics with you, I will use the word it was illegal then in future if that makes you happy.

[iMmm. Indeed. So? That was taken into consideration. That will be why he got a one match ban and not longer. Your point is?[/i

My point is the same as I have been making consistently throughout this thread... I think one match was fair... did you really not get that or have you changed your mind then as well?

Which is what Leuluai did only you're sceptical about it's sincerity.

It's got nothing in particular to do with being a fan of either side it's to do with being a judge of character.

...and even maybe shook hands with the opposition team at the end of the game tvoc!

I think the tackle looked sufficiently bad to warrant a two match ban but with the playoffs coming up, that was never going to happen. That he should have a clean record taken into account is fine by me as I think that [ishould[/i be taken into account.

1 match is a soft ban for that tackle, regardless if it was intentional or not that is no excuse. If a player carelessly breaks another players jaw with a high tackle, then the fact that they "didn't mean it" has no bearing. It's the same argument here.

IMO if you try to turtle a tackled player (I believe that's what JJB was trying to do) you run the risk of being brought up on a charge such as the one JJB received.

Take the medicine and come back wiser for it, with better technique. It's not the end of the world for either player involved, and it's a big boys game.

A-ha!

A sensible Leeds fan!!

I will say though that I hope it's not the end of the world for James Graham. Hopefully his injury is minor and not career threatening.

intentional or not is indeed a defence, and a pretty important once at that. so yes 'i didn't mean it' does have a bearing on some cases (as long as there is evidence to suggest doubt), especially since the panel rule on the action of the player not the injury caused.
e.g.
player charged with reckless high tackle. player pleads not guilty, admits there is contact high but didn't mean to, attacker fell/first contact low then arm came up/defender fell into tackle/etc. player comes away with careless tackle charge, possibly even no case to answer.

the only part of intentional or not which can not be used is the outcome of the action. e.g. yes i punched him, but didn't mean to break his jaw.
however on that same note the panel can not say you're banned for x weeks because you caused y injury

JJB loses his appeal.

welcome to 4 hours ago

You mean a Leeds fan who agrees with you don't you?

Well, the Panel [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=1443does imply that potential to cause injury does influence matters in its ruling on JJB's tackle[/url.

If the potential to cause injury is not considered, then why rule on 'undue pressure to a joint'?

I think that report is quite illuminating! Far from being sportsmanlike about the incident, JJB tries to lay part of the blame on James Graham!

He didn't state two match ban, so no.

You are quite good at putting your words into other people's mouth's are you not?

MHL is totally correct in respect of the disciplinary panel guildlines, what he is saying you can not ban someone for x weeks for y injury. You ban someone on the potential to cause harm, irrespective of whether it caused harm! Some head high tackles have lead to broken jaws, some have not, but you can not ban someone for longer beacuse it did or did not, only the intent is relevant.

Which is what the panel said!

was a rather poor effort IMO

Nope.

I just wanted to get in a reference to the RFL report as I thought it was quite illuminating, like I said.

Well in that case I take it back and will agree with you and MHL that you are actually rubbish at it then!

Thanks!

its a bog standard report where they pretty much only change the names. the only part that is even remotely interesting is seeing what excuse the player has come up with, even then its the same excuses used all the time

I can't help but feel the sky commentators have had a huge influence in the reaction of supporters to this incident.

They went on about it like JJB had tried to murder graham.

If they hadn't mentioned it i doubt saints fans would have even noticed it, and they'd have assumed graham went into the tackle awkward.

But let's just flash back to earlier in the season and the game at kr.

Things were getting heated around the 60 minute mark, burgess drove the ball in and was met by cunningham, who wrapped his arm around the neck of burgess and slammed his head into the ground!

A penalty was given and eddie assumed it was for inteterference, aq replay was shown.............and stevo says ''yeah, nothing wrong with the tackle!!''

sorry WHAT?

No suprises that not much was made of that incident.

But no doubt if a leeds player had done this on friday night and the commentators rabbit it on about all hell would have broken loose on red vee.

The sheer one eyed-ness of saints fans is a source of constant amazement.

They have to be the most stupid sports fans in the world.

Gotta be?

It's the first time I've seen a player trying to blame the player he was injuring for the illegal tackle he committed!

quite sure i've read it before, defiantly heard it before. and to be fair he has a bit of a point, if graham was fighting the attempt to put him on his back, the risk of injury would have gone down massively. but in a contact sport, its not something that is going to happen, one player just letting another do as they please.

however i do think its a good and very relevant bit of information that should be taken into account when judging the likely hood of injury

No, it isn't fair because he does not have a point. All players fight to get back up when they are tackled because they want to play the ball as quickly as possible. That's the game. Since that tackle had quite clearly been completed, the chicken wing being entirely unnecessary, JJB should have released Graham immediately he began to try and get up, if indeed that is what he did.

It's been dealt with - time to move on! JJB will get to rest up before the Huddersfield game.

Let's hope your guide dog gave you a better report of that incident than he did with the Gilmour and Senior punches.

the tackle is complete once the ref says so, as the ref hadn't said complete leeds where with in their right to try what they want to him (as long as its legal).

the point i was making was that had graham not attempted to fight off jjb, then he simply would have been put on his back with the risk of injury next to none. the big increase in risk comes into affect when graham tries to put opposing pressure. so with potential risk of injury been taken into account, then all causes of that risk should be taken into account! this is what JJB seems to be challenging over.

i don't think they is much doubt that the tackle ended up with graham in a bad position, however they are many factors that can account for this and unlike most saints fans think, not all of them are "coz jjb is a dirty tw*t"