Usual disclaimer that I don't think this in any way influenced the result, we were just out-played by a better side.

But, why did Saints not have a man binned for the repeated high shots and grapples? Particularly as one man, Wilkin, put in a pretty bad shot, got formally warned and then was involved himself again in one that the TJ ran on for? Eastmond's on Jeffries also looked pretty bad in its own right to me but there were at least 4 penalties given for playing the head and no card action at all.

Last night in the Warrington match there was another pretty bad one in on King that only warranted a penalty and I can't remember the last card I've seen for a high shot.

If it only results in a penalty then we'll never see the end of dangerous play like this.

Indeed, the tackle by Eastmond surely should have resulted in red. It was a swinging arm that connected, what else do you have to do to be shown a red card these days?

As for Wilkin, we already knew all about him so his series of head high tackles came as no surprise. And to think Saints still boo Newton who has cleaned up his act now. Wilkin is probably one of the worst offenders in SL for head shots.

And before any Saints fans call it sour grapes, I thought they were well worth their win today.

Some of the tackles out there were shocking today. That's the worse disciplined team we have seen at Odsal this season. Or best disciplined if thats what they are coached to do. I suppose if they get away with it then why not. Wilkin is dirty. I'm not sure he knows how to tackle below the neck.
I couldn't see Eastmonds. I'm not sure it was even on report was it?

None of them were put on report.

That's ridiculous. Eastmonds was basically a full on crack to BJ.

Think he will probably get called in. Can they do that if its not on report?

I'm not sure, but to me it sould have definitely been sin-bin at least.

If Wilkin had been sin-binned for the first one then it is less likely that the others would have happened. That's part of the point of the sin bin but it just feels like refs are suddenly reluctant to use it. I don't understand.

Coz its Saints?

Players don't get sin-binned for swinging arms to the chest, or sent off/banned.

[url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anatomy-Coloring-Book-Wynn-Kapit/dp/0805350861/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245613253&sr=8-1Perhaps one for your wishlist?[/url

I never suggested for a second that they do. I suggested that they do for a swinging arm to the head.

yes

You dont get binned for a head high, you can get binned for it being a repetetive penalty( which he should have done at least) or you can get red carded.

I thought you could get binned for a reckess one or something though? Does anyone know the actual rule?

Whichever way, isn't it meant to be about the players safety?

Yes, you can get called even though the act [i(didn't see it, can't really comment) [/i was not put on report. Getting called doesn't necessarily mean any sanction would follow.

Though not exactly the same circumstances, IF they were called and IF I was a betting man [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=1101This[/url , [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=1105This[/url or [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=1106This[/url would be the sort of action my money would be on.

The RFL have balls as big as Megan Fox's

Its a good job your team does'nt get penalised for you lot shouting FORWARD or you would never have the feckin ball

Yes. The actual rule is:
13) i. In the event of a reckless tackle the referee must immediately look at the shirt of the player committing the offence.
ii) If it is a Saints player the referee should then see if it is possible to turn the offence around i.e. claim the ball carrying player lead with his elbow.
iii) If this is not possible see if the player lost the ball when assaulted and give head and feed to Saints.
iv) Look around to see if anybody noticed and whether you can ignore the offence.
v) reluctantly give penalty but warn player to take more care not to get caught in future.

Were you actually at the game?
Have you never been to a Saints home game? Or do you just hear and see what you want to?

Yes. The actual rule is:
13) i. In the event of a reckless tackle the referee must immediately look at the shirt of the player committing the offence.
ii) If it is a Saints player the referee should then see if it is possible to turn the offence around i.e. claim the ball carrying player lead with his elbow.
iii) If this is not possible see if the player lost the ball when assaulted and give head and feed to Saints.
iv) Look around to see if anybody noticed and whether you can ignore the offence.
v) reluctantly give penalty but warn player to take more care not to get caught in future.

At first glance Eastmond's tackle on Jeffries looked like a copy of Edwards on Clyde at Wembley 1994 however in this case there was no damage done. I suspect the initial contact may have been chest high. It certainly wasn't great technique from Eastmond even if he didn't intend to do any serious damage.

Tony Hannan's comments in the Sadler Express take some believing, as a hack I suspect he'd have been sat in the stand over 60m away so I'm not sure how he could've had as good a view as the fans on the pop side or the officials.

One of the flag wavers actually came on to the pitch and we all know how bad an incident has to be to get any action from the living dead. Personally, I think it is about time that the Bulls had an enforcer type. I'm sick of seeing other teams turn up and give it out while we meekly sit back.

What did he say? Haven't popped out for a copy yet?