It seems Neil Hudgell is nearly as annoyed with the RFL as Lawrie: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26748682 Although he'd be better if he just came out and said what was on his mind and stopped holding it all in like this.

It seems Neil Hudgell is nearly as annoyed with the RFL as Lawrie: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26748682 Although he'd be better if he just came out and said what was on his mind and stopped holding it all in like this.

probably only because he hasn't had the opportunity in a good long while

Haha. Touché.

You sound like Wilkin now.

Come on, you must be better than that.

'their' feud. It was a one way paddy.

Quote ="El Diablo"It seems Neil Hudgell is nearly as annoyed with the RFL as Lawrie: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26748682 Although he'd be better if he just came out and said what was on his mind and stopped holding it all in like this.'" The irony of an ambulance chaser looking for someone to blame.

Quote ="El Diablo"It seems Neil Hudgell is nearly as annoyed with the RFL as Lawrie: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26748682 Although he'd be better if he just came out and said what was on his mind and stopped holding it all in like this.'" The irony of an ambulance chaser looking for someone to blame.

Haha. OK, his paddy. Either way, he hasn't been a hypocrite has he? If he threw a paddy at Bailey's celebrations and then a couple of years later got a ban for a high tackle, how is that in any way two-faced?

Contest between that and ... "Saints potential MOS Luke Walsh".

Quote ="El Diablo"It seems Neil Hudgell is nearly as annoyed with the RFL as Lawrie: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26748682 Although he'd be better if he just came out and said what was on his mind and stopped holding it all in like this.'" But he doesn't say anything of any substance. It's playing to the crowd, pure & simple.

Quote ="El Diablo"It seems Neil Hudgell is nearly as annoyed with the RFL as Lawrie: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26748682 Although he'd be better if he just came out and said what was on his mind and stopped holding it all in like this.'" But he doesn't say anything of any substance. It's playing to the crowd, pure & simple.

He's played the moral high ground card by having a bitch fit over a fellow players conduct.

I put to you that his conduct isn't perfect.

Pot...kettle....black...

Call it what you want.

You know I love you, but I agree with that giraffe thingy.

Wilkin's hissy fit was to do with childish over-celebrating, not smacking people round the head or general dirty play.

If you want hypocrisy, look to Mr Wilkin's childish strop as a response to Bailey's childish behaviour. That was ironic. This is to do with being a dirty b*****d, and I don't think Wilkin has complained much about anyone being a dirty b*****d.

He clearly never read this forum during the 'glass coffee table' days then.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

or summat.

Climb on.

Score.

Quote ="Old Feller"But he doesn't say anything of any substance. It's playing to the crowd, pure & simple.'" Nothing of substance? www.hullkr.co.uk/club/news/artic ... e-Chairman

Quote ="Old Feller"But he doesn't say anything of any substance. It's playing to the crowd, pure & simple.'" Nothing of substance? www.hullkr.co.uk/club/news/artic ... e-Chairman

Have to agree with him on one point, the throw on Whiting is far more dangerous than the Justin Poore incident.

Im not so sure about that. The Whiting throw is wrong and needs to be punished but that looks to me to be just 2 around the body, one around the legs to try and take him down, held is called, Whiting gives himself up (as you would expect it brings a quicker end to the tackle and means the tackling players need to get off quickly to avoid conceding a pen) which leaves a guy trying to lift a player who was previously resisting then lifting quite quickly, and two guys who were trying to put a guy who was previously resisting going down quite quickl. Once Whiting was in that position there was an onus on the players to try and put him down safer, but it seemed completely accidental that he got in to that position and just seemed to go a little wrong.

The Poore incident was pretty similar in that it doesn’t seem overly deliberate an act to get the tackled player in to a position where the legs where above the horizontal, but Poore then goes back in to that player and adds weight again pushing down from the legs through the body to the head/neck area.

Id be prepared to accept that maybe the Whiting throw is more dangerous (though I don’t think its all that clear cut) I think the Poore incident has obvious malicious intent.

Im comfortable with the Poore incident being the more heavily punished one.

Another view would be that Poore was completing the tackle while ensuring the player got to ground safely having initially been placed in a dangerous position.

he is the one holding his legs up, so i cant agree with that interpretation of it.

Nobody is asking for the other Hull KR players to be punished, and if you look at the Whiting incident, the parallel of Poore in that incident pulls out of the tackle before it is completed. Poore's actions are far worse than his.

I detected no malice in the actions of Poore on this occasion.



All three Hull KR players (including Poore) appeared to act with a responsibility to their fellow player once they'dplaced him in a dangerous position. Am I to understand Poore was suspended for this action?

Re the Hull V Widnes incident - I'd be tempted to ban all the Widnes players for wearing a kit with indecipherable numbers but would say that it appeared the more dangerous of the two.

Poore was banned because the RFL interpretation was closer to mine, that there was a 2nd effort as it were.
It appears the parallel with Poore was Willie Isa and the RFL said of his involvement [iThree players have contributed to putting player in a dangerous position. Player lifts the leg of opponent but releases before the conclusion of the tackle. Technique worthy of MRP caution[/i
I didn’t read those before I posted my view just watched the incidents, but the RFL’s view seems to be similar to mine, that both players were put in a dangerous position and in a poor technique tackle. One (isa) realises this and gets out before the tackle is complete, the other (Poore) lifts the legs higher and goes for a 2nd bite.

I’m not going to argue which looked more dangerous, but there seemed much clearer intent and action in the Poore one than the Whiting one.

Finding myself in agreement with the RFL disciplinary panel is not where I'd want to be at the moment.

I've also now read the judgement and agree with the version put forward by the player and his representatives namely that [i"The player indicated he was third man into the tackle, grabbed opponents legs and was in control at all times and placed him safely on his front. Opponent did not land on head or neck."[/i


What does [i"The player is then seen to lift the legs of the tackled player higher and harder" [/imean?

Once the tackled player hits the floor, Poore lifts the legs, bringing the player closer to a vertical postion, and pushes down, putting the pressure on to the tackled players upper body. He doesn’t land on his head or neck, but Poore certainly tries to apply pressure to it.

I think you are solely looking at the impact of the player with the floor, it seems that Poore’s offence was exacerbated by his actions immediately after that, lifting the players legs higher and applying pressure whilst he is on the ground.

Poore does stay attached to the tackled player a second longer than was perhaps necessary but if they're going to start handing out three game bans for that neither St Helens nor Leeds (nor any other SL club) will have many players to choose from this month.