It also elicited this quote from Radford himself -: "If he's gone to roll his ankle, that's an act of cowardice." I agree with him.

I'll leave in there, any more insults PM me.

If it's deliberate, then I agree, hard to prove though, he should be punished though.

Get a grip, man

superleague.co.uk/report/11136 Stats, from the game.

superleague.co.uk/report/11136 Stats, from the game.

Some big numbers in attack from some of our 'other' forwards today.

Ablett - 11 carries....113m.....10.27 avg
Singleton - 11 carries....100m....9.09 avg
Leuluai - 14 carries....124m....8.86 avg

Think Leuluai has shown the last two weeks that he can still do a job for us THIS year. He might not have had it in him to be a starting prop all year through but he's effectively only playing half a season now and will usually be off the bench (if Cuthbertson isn't out for too long) so could do a role for us for the run-in.

Having Peacock on the bench was probably to save him a bit for Friday so it's a shame Cuthbertson got injured and Peacock has ended up taking more carries (22) than probably was hoped for.

As for Friday. They nearly matched us in offloads (16-15). I know we had our best one in Cuthbertson off injured but they still got a few off. 5 of those came from Liam Watts, his avg carry wasn't anything good (4.9m) but we need to try and stop him offloading as much on Friday.

Can sneyd be punished retrospectivly given the ref dealt with it?

Also, not defending the obvious ankle twist but is that what did mags ankle or was it damaged in the fall/tackle and then sneyd twisted an already damaged ankle?

If sneyd did break mags ankle by twisting then I would like the rfl to send out a strong msg.

Yes, it will be looked at by the review panel if they think there was nothing in it they can deem sin bin is sufficient but I suspect it will be at the least a reckless challenge putting pressure on the joints.

It will be very interesting to see what the rfl do then.

Was also pleased with McDs comments about the idiocy of sinbinning a player for retiluation at having his ankle either damaged or twisted when damaged by a "fellow professional"/plankton.

Whilst I think he was correct to moan about it in hindsight (i.e. an injury inflicted), and the fact that the ref still chose to sin bin despite seeing the injury, the point is had there not been an injury the ref would have been correct. McGuire kicked out in a very bad way, his foot came down on the players head. In that fast motion the error of the ref can be somewhat understood.

Pretty certain Mags ankle was OK after the initial tackle... He was already getting up for a quick PTB

Thought Hardaker, JP, Ablett and Keinhorst were the highlights. Keinhorst showed some real touches of quality in the second row.

In other games losing Cuthbertson would have been a blow, but Kylie gave a timely nostalgic performance.

Liam Watts continues to be a puzzle. Massive lad, sometimes runs like Kirke sometimes runs like Morley. Neat touches, clumsy tackles. All a bit odd.

Lee Radford's line on serpent tackle on McGuire - 'probably done by accident'. Haven't watched it back but from view to me showed intention to twist it round so will cop a rightful ban. didnt mind mcguire booting him off, what was he meant to do? Wouldn't have been overly bothered either if Ablett had followed through with that closed fist either. If Serpent wanted to hold mcguire down he could have clamped down to have that effect. -house for me.

In a small way "justice" was meted out to Hull in that, with Sneyd off the pitch, they were unable to convert their last try.
Had he still been on he would probably have converted it making the score 26-22, making the last 5 minutes more nervy than they were.
I wonder if McGuire contributed to his sinbinning due to his constant backchat to Hicks, which cost us at least one penalty being marched forward another 10 metres.
That is not to condone Sneyd's actions which I hope will be dealt with severely.
All in all a good tight game which we are seeing more of this year.
We are now guaranteed a spot in the last 8. Where we end up is totally in our own hands.
Not bad for an aging, badly coached side.

I appreciate he's trying to defend his own player ahead of a trip to Red Hall tomorrow, but that's absolute nonsense.

If it's an accident, why has Sneyd rolled first to his right, then over again while still holding on to McGuire's lower leg? You don't do that "by accident".

If he wants to slow down the play the ball, he just has to grab both of McGuire's legs and lie on top of him. No need for him to twist or contort his body in any way. It's a deliberate (even if it's not pre-meditated) and conscious decision to put a fellow professional in a position you know can cause him serious injury.

Still, given Radford's history of only smacking people from behind when they're on the floor, not a real surprise.

had the ref missed the twisting of his ankle maybe so. But the ref saw it and punished Snead for it so the ref knew that McGuire was having his ankle twisted at that point.

That's the key point. If he wasn't attempting to injure / act against the spirit of the game, the only logical reasoning was that he was attempting to slow him down. if so, as you mention, you'd just clamp on, easiest way to do it. But to twist? a bit of an odd train of thought.

But he didn't know he was injured when he gave the penalty and signalled. The action was over the top from McGuire without injury. However, when he showed the card he could not have know he wasn't injured from the incident.

Don't know if anyones posted this already, but, cast your minds back to the opening game of 2014. Hull FC vs Catalans.

Elima tackles Heremaia but keeps hold of the leg and rolls. Very similar to what Sneyd did. If the RFL show any consistency (do they ever) Sneyd is looking at a minimum 4 matches, taking into account the injury caused.

[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?4928[/url

So if McGuires action stops his ankle been broken its over the top?

I thought Ablett was head and shoulders best player. Pleasing because his form has dipped a little this year IMO.

Still, it was a good display from Keinhorst, a player someone on here described as Hehterington's "pet project" that would "never make a super league player".

You are Scott Palfreyman and I claim my £5

This.

Its an action that is designed (and taught by other players and coaches) to cause pain to the other player. That it went further and caused injury isn't surprising, in exactly the same way as Chase's cannonball on Ferres did. That is not mitigation for Sneyd, it's an aggravation. He knows it has the potential to cause injury and yet did it anyway.

10 match ban minimum for me. I'm sick of seeing these sh|thouse type of tackles and tactics that are actively being taught to players in our game. It's not tough. It's cowardly. And they aren't the values our sport was built on and says it continues to want in our game.

It's about time these tackles and tactics were stamped out of the game with very long bans for the players that commit them. Plus, it's time to make the coaches and clubs responsible for their actions, because these things are being practiced in training. So every time an incident happens the coach and club be fined. On an increasing scale for the first few then we start in to bans for the coaches and punishments for the club until they take responsibility and stop these sh|thouse, pathetic, cowardly acts from happening.

Apart from at fault for two of the tries you mean?

....anything to do with the fact he was making a rare appearance in what many - including me - have long said is his [ibest[/i poistion? (at least on attack)

Did it stop his ankle been broken? That wasn't what I said at all though. I said it from the refs perspective. The ref saw the offence and penalised it, he also saw McGuire lift his right foot in the air and kick it down on Sneyd. That is an offence in it's self no matter who you support. However, the fact that McGuire sustained the injury from the offence, Hicks should have used his head better.

Me personally, I am not a believer that retaliation should be punished the same as original offences. However, those are the rules.