Completely agree. Other sports (Ice Hockey) embrace a bit of biff whereas RL seems to want to clear the game of anything that might be 'dangerous'. Don't get me wrong there is a line that needs to be drawn and knocking somebody's head off deserves punishment, but RL is a hard game played by hard men and I don't think you'll find any RL supporter that would want that watered down.

Bailey is just a thug, if you watch him he only gets brave when he's running in when somebody is not expecting it just like he did with his forearm to diskins head on Thursday,or like on Monday at Catalan,twice.

You watch next time Leeds are on sky and he's available to play,which is the bulls at home,if he tackles somebody small he gets up while they are playing the ball like he's Mike Tyson,if he tackles a big bloke he gets up while they are playing the ball like he's Audley Harrison

He is the original bully, only joins in when he thinks he will get the upper hand

Shits himself when he knows he won't

I've consistently said that the word "spear" is bandied about far too often.

A spear tackle, by definition, is specifically when the head is driven into the ground, often with both the weight of the tackled player and the tackler behind it, and [inot[/i just when the legs go over the horizontal; there is a world of difference. To be honest, I've not seen a genuine "spear" tackle for years and sincerely hope I never see another.

For what its worth, I think that lifting the legs is being taken to silly levels these days, even to the extent of players unintentionally getting the legs too high [not that difficult in multiple tackles with players pulling in different directions and then putting the tackled player down as gently as a mother putting a baby in a pram, and [istill[/i being penalised.

TBH, I can see in a couple of years there been some sort of ban on lifting, like they currently have in union. Tip tackle I think they call it

... were all correct in that assessment, as it is the same one taken by the disciplinary authorities. But you keep right on trying to persuade the world that you alone saw it for the heinous attempted murder that you clearly think it was.





1. It was not an "innocent" tackle. It was exactly what we all saw, exactly what the ref called at the time, and exactly what the disciplinary made of it.

2. If a serious injury (or any injury) occurs in an "innocent tackle", on what basis would you possibly punish the innocent tackler who is, er, innocent?

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you son?

Whiteheads lift reminded me of Seymour on Crookes last year. I thought at the time Seymour should have received a ban so I'll not be hypocritical and say that I think Whitehead should have got away without one, but Seymour got a caution as well so it appears consistent.
[urlhttp://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12210/8049448/Seymour-receives-caution[/url