So if you lot think it's not okay to throw punches, why was Briscoe still on the field?

Flat? So you're suggesting the whole of his back hit the floor, the tackle wasn't even slightly dangerous, and Crookes just lashed out for nothing?

I think it's the logical answer that a player with no history of being a 'fighter' punched a player who he'll probably be playing with next season just for the sake of it, not because he'd been tackled dangerously.

I see you're clearly not intelligent enough to see that it was done on purpose.

I'm not suggesting it, I'm stating it as fact.

In all fairness Hull fans, if this was the other way round you would be complaining just as much, don't take the moral high ground.

We are all crazy biased fans at the end of the day.

Why's that then? And please don't tell me it was when he pushed Elima!

You're stating it as fact that Crookes lashed out for nothing?

If he attends any of your fan events next year ask him if he thought there was nothing in it.

He lashed out because he got smashed and didn't like it.

He was picked up around the waist, then driven into the ground. If he'd had his arm between his legs or landed on his head/neck/shoulders first then I'd agree with you. But none of those things happened.

Weren't.

Are you sure? So his legs didn't go over horizontal? Righhhtttt.

They weren't 'lifted', is the point I believe he is making.

But they wasn't lifted by the tackler, which is the important part, but thanks for your input.

Weren't.

So he lifted them himself? Right, I see.

3 pages on a Good Tackle FFS

4 on an appalling one.

get over it, move on, no permanant injury, just the thought he got mashed by a scrum half, slammed on his back, thrown a few punches, then realised.... fook he may be my team-mate next season

How many did Moa's get!?

He landed on his back. However, during the tackle Crookes was raised into a dangerous position and so the penalty was the correct call. It didn't warrant anything more than that.

Monster hit!! Great shot, we need more of these if we are to liven our game up a bit. I know the Bulls fans are smarting after a loss, but the tackle was nothing, and let's face it, they are cluching at straws a bit!

Head/Neck or even shoulders didn't hit the ground first so nothing illegal at all. Get Premier sports and watch some of the SnapShot hits from the NRL, plenty like that one!

Is that your theory on any tackle?

Next time there is any high/spear/dangerous tackle on a hull player I'd expect you all to move on quietly and not mention it as long as he's not injured ..........

Odd phrase to use.

Everyone knows you were the better team, we deserved to lose. No straws to be clutched at, just discussing a dirty tackle as we would if we had won, drawn or got a thrashing!

As he was driven to the ground, by a scrum half I may add, the momentum has caused his legs to elevate. Seymour hasn't physically done it himself, there's a subtle but important difference you don't seem to be able to grasp.

What spear tackle??
He landed on his back u blind TW@T FFS, watch it, then watch it again................

Move on, go get your free curry, you got owned in your own back yard

Seymour was guilty of a reckless tackle only because the players legs was high than the horizontal

receiving a butting might just get him off

Not by Seymour they wasn't, which is why there was nothing wrong with it.

You seem unable to grasp the fact if his legs are elevated in the tackle like that, it is a dangerous tackle. Where did the momentum come from?