If Anthony England can cop a an 8 match ban for gobbing at Hobbit boy, then Sneyd should be facing at the very least a similar term spent in the stands.

Both actions were deliberate and both have absolutely no place in our game, although England left Brough with a slimy face while Sneyd left McGuire needing hospital treatment

that you don't see the inherent confusion and contradiction in what you are saying isn't surprising.

There is no confusion. The fact you can't see that is not surprising.

The rules are the rules from a refs perspective, whether we like it or not. He played to the rules.

The Sneyd incident happened right in front of where I was standing in the SS. I don't know what Sneyd was thinking when he twisted the ankle, but you could see clearly he was. But as others have said, McGuire was trying to get up for a quick PTB, I guess you can't do that if you are unable to put your feet on the floor as someone is yanking your ankles.

I know Sneyd is a kicker and not necessarily the type of player who tackles a shed load and therefore will automatically do what the big tank players will do of holding down - I imagine (rightly or wrongly) that Sneyd isn't the kind of player to often find himself in situations like that to try and quickly react and slow it down in the 'most safe way for the other player'.

Again, as others have pointed out, McGuire presumably wasn't in quite so much pain when he tried to kick whoever it was in the head, because he was being stopped from doing a quick PTB. These two things would suggest it happened during the twist.

However in seeing it all happen in front of me, I was as disgusted with McGuire's actions as Sneyd's - both were pretty purile, though McGuire's was more obviously deliberate (though 'understandable' arguably, with what was going on).

Regarding the game more generally, I was really impressed with Keinhorst again - he has played sporadically but you don't hear any complaints and then the recent games he has played even with my relatively novice eyes, I can see that he does a lot of quiet work that isn't often showy but contributes a lot. I was happy to see he was playing yesterday and that he had an impact again.

In watching them warm up before (and with comments of people on here in mind) I was watching Walters. He is definitely stockier and slower - he was ambling during the warm up. To me, it seems he has bulked up to the sort of size that does him a disservice twice - he is now no longer slim and nippy like he was before, but neither is he a lumbering giant that can carry cars. He is sort of inbetween; no longer quick and agile but also not a beast. I understand he has more strength than last year, but nowhere near enough to make up for what he has lost in gaining the bulk.

Finally, the interchanges. Two of those did my tree in - what was the point in Sinners for Aiton, followed by Aiton for Sutters within 2 minutes. Why didn't he just switch Sinners for Sutters and save a sub..? There was another one later that was similar, with Ward or Singleton I think. Can anyone who knows more than me explain why those type of substitutions would make sense to make?

To me they seem illogical as he essentially used 4 substitutions to do what could have been done using just 2. Were these due to injuries - I see now that people have highlighted that we picked a few up? Thanks.

No. What I meant was clear. I meant that my opinion was that Ablett was our best player. That you think he was at fault for two tries doesn't change my opinion.

My opinion was borne out of watching the game and reinforced by the stats which show he made 38 tackles, 11 carries for an eye popping 10.27 average, three clean breaks and 2 offloads.

I never claimed he was perfect.

I suggest you re-watch the video. He shows McGuire the card after a few minutes of treatment and whilst he is being carried from the field. Unless he concluded McGuire and the Leeds medical staff were faking it to avoid a sin binning it must have been obvious to him that McGuire was injured.

clumsy at best, goes on all the time,a ban yes it should be, but my problem is the next time nowt will happen,he will properly play fri

That first sentence is brilliant as an attempted insult.

If rules are rules perhaps you could point out the rule which backs up your statement that it was ok because McGuire broke his ankle where as it wouldn't have been had he not?

No he won't

So a player who is at fault for two try's conceding and failed to put a ball down over the line against a much smaller opponent was our best player. That is on a par with Sky giving Roberts Man of the Match on Thursday

. By the way other than the faults I thought Ablett had arguably his best game of the season. But I wouldn't have even said he was our best forward let alone player.






I don't need to re-watch the video, as you have just confirmed what I said. I presume you didn't read it properly. I too said that the ref couldn't have not known he was injured when he showed the card and Hicks should have used his head better on the sin binning, but the decisions he made on the penalty would have been at the time before the physio came on.

Goes on all the time? Yeah cant move for -house ankle twists in your average Super League.

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.