Ok, Ok, pack it in, you've convinced me, there is nothing that can be done better, no improvements available, the case was not an example of a ref bottling it, we shouldn't say anything as in fact it wasn't ridiculous, and when I thought as I watched it in real time "That is disgraceful, an instant and obvious send off", I now realise that it was not obvious, and it is perfectly reasonable for a highly qualified professional referee who saw it, to wrongly form a different view. Mea culpa.

Or alternatively, you could accept nobody is disputing the vague general principle that "games are refereed by human beings who have different views & interpretations on incidents", we're disputing that Alibert's decision of this particular obvious sending-off was one a competent referee was entitled to make.

A second ref, like in the NRL, would have seen this clear as day. Unfortunately our game probably doesn't have enough full time refs to be able to have two at each game.

You were less sure when Raynor knocked Tomkins out. In fact you knew he was aiming at the ball & were convinced 99% of ref's wouldn't have sent him off if it wasn't for the pesky intervention of the VR. If Raynor had not been sent off that would have been a case of major bottling. As it is, i have not seen the Bridge incident.

Nah, Raynor was an obvious send-off. Stop winding. And you can't not have seen the Bridge incident, unless your real name is Wenger

And how is this not a major bottling then?

It might be, though I would initially always side with the officials rather than hysterical fans of offended teams. As I missed that part of the game I cannot comment on the view of the officials; if it was an incident as volatile as it appears I am surprised it wasn't replayed to death & the VR supplied his verdict to the ref - which is what was alleged in the Raynor incident. My position is to offer a counter argument to simplistic statements & accusations on here. Surprisingly on the Cas board there is massive disagreement over who Child was biased in favour of in Cas v Leeds. I thought he had an excellent game.

It was replayed to death, the touchie couldn't manage to spot the big screen though.

You're wrong, Child was implementing the latest RFL directive to get rid of Cas from SL - latest conspiracy on the Cas board

I only need wander to the Cas board for 2 minutes a month to realise why I spend most of my time on here. I feel I have a fair chance to educate posters on here, but they are a lost cause at Cas.

But as there are a number who are clearly commenting in the cold light of day, and clearly not hysterical, your generalistic platitudes don't advance this particular argument. Ejukashun knot kneaded hear.

On the link provided, not only Stevo, but also Chris Irvine (Times) and Andy Wilson (Guardian) are mystified as to why Alibert did not send Bridge off. Are they hysterical fans too?

I also have a cure for your Wenger disease, it would have taken you a minute to type "Chris Bridge elbow incident" into some popular video site and then you could be speaking from an informed position. If you have not the time to do even that then a summary follows

The first 2 suggest an obvious sending off, the third he is so far away from the head as to not be a deliberate aim for the head (though his elbow ends up in BJ's throat). I remember Paul Hulme doing a similar tackle on a Brian Smith coached Hull player in a Premiership final (IRRC), not even a penalty. Having watched the video (thanks for the link) numerous times either Alibert's view was obscured or he thought Bridge was aiming for the ball (which from Alibert's distance would require remarkable sixth sense) & gave him benefit of the doubt. If you watch Bridge's face he is looking at the ball, not Jeffries head. So in summary what do I now think? If he had connected with Jeffries head &/or BJ had been badly injured, or a mass brawl ensued, Bridge would have been off with no complaints from me. Which takes us back to the old argument about intent, if a player swings a haymaker, which misses, but would have decapitated the opposition player, should he walk? In reality he never does.

Your opinion had Bridge fractured Ben's sternum?

IMO Bridge got off very very lightly indeed. Looks like an assault to me.

Don't remember anyone suggesting it was meant as an attack to the head. It was an illegal use of the forearm and that was what he's been banned for. FWIW I reckon the person with a clear, close and unobstructed view was the linesman.

I also am mystified as to how VR's keep getting themselves involved in contentious calls against us, and also you can work out are plainly involved in other contentious incidents, yet seemingly Alibert couldn't have had any help from the VR on this one as the VR is not allowed to get involved. Nuts.

Right, so we need to start a brawl then and then players would get sent off. Got it.

Possibly yes. I don't know what the rules are regarding the VR, & don't particularly care, but I am sure I have seen the ref take a report on the incident in his ear piece after a major bust up. As an aside, given the apparent seriousness of the assault a good few teams would have snotted Bridge. I think young Bateman was about the most aggressive Bulls player.

Really? It seems pages of accusations that it was a vicious attack that missed its intended target. If it was aimed at the ball & hit the ball what is the offence - is there an offence of illegal use of the forearm & how many players have ever been dismissed for connecting below the neck? As regards the linesman, he must have had a better view than the ref but having watched the replay there is not one shot that shows the incident & the linesman in the same view.

Is there anything in the rules that specifically prohibits you from twisting a players leg?

Isaac Luke. Four nations. Tackling technique. Nowhere near Rangi Chase's head.

It was a cynical and deliberate attempt to hurt Chase, and he got two matches for it. Same as Bridge would have if he hadn't put his hand up. I see little to no difference with the Bridge incident, with the small proviso that Bridge has got his act together and isn't an outright 2@. Luke seems to be in freefall if other incidents are anything to go by.

How close he was to Jeffries' head has nothing to do with it. The tackle is over at that point, we're not trying to decide if it was high or not. We're talking about a cynical and deliberate attempt to hurt a player prone on the ground. If he'd aimed for and hit his ankle with the same action there would be uproar.

If the impact had been near the ball, which it wasn't even slightly, he would still need a word having with him because of his technique. If you need to raise your elbow above your own head and bring it down in a smashing action on a player prone on the ground then the move you are trying to make is a non-starter and you should be finding ways to disabuse yourself of it.

I asked what the offence was as I genuinely don't/didn't know, it certainly looks terrible and is crap technique if he is trying to dislodge the ball. I am not sure the tackle is over however, if he had merely flopped on top of Bridge would it still have been a penalty?

I doubt it because there were several instances in both sides favour where he shouted held and then allowed the defenders to drive the ball carrying player off his feet and then sprawl about all over him. Lot of that about these days.

I'm not sure the tackle was technically over though, so possibly not. One thing I am sure about is his hulk smash routine was entirely unconnected to stopping Jeffries from progressing the ball upfield.

The offence is Rule: 15.1(a)
A player is guilty of misconduct if he:
(a) ...strikes another player.

The RFL state that the incident considered was:
"Use of elbow/forearm in 53rd minute"
Detail: "Strikes – Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder - intentional Grade: B "

Bridge made an early guilty plea.

So, to be crystal clear, he admitted INTENTIONAL STRIKING of Jeffries, using his elbow/forearm

I think that is as much as needs saying.

Thanks for clarifying the offence. No argument about the ban from me. Though a cynic (such as Tony Smith?) might say he pleaded guilty to avoid a heavier ban.

Again, no; as it happened Smith was a guest on the Super League Show and frankly admitted that what Bridge did was "a silly thing to do", saying his "adrenaline had kicked in" and he had got himself "over-pumped", and "may have to learn the hard way tomorrow". Smith clearly accepted Bridge's guilt, and fair play to him.

Yes, those pictures are pretty damning, though I'm intrigued by when kicking somebody in the knackers was considered acceptable in our game as well?? (See same pictures, and probably also the frame before the first one aardvark decided to show as evidence....

)

Whilst Bridge is guilty and deserves his punishment, its interesting the initial provocation has received scant coverage on this thread??

Is that the incident where Bridge reaches down, grabs the players legs and then upends him onto his ? Cos I think you might find that's what causes Jeffries legs to rise. It might also be why it's received scant discussion anywhere, including the disciplinary hearing that watched the video oh, let's say at least half way through. Maybe even all the way to the end. More than once.

Chris Bridge Elbow would be your YT search terms if you want to disabuse yourself of your stupid and ridiculous notion that Bridge was in any way retaliating.

lol