I worry about Tigertot...

Don't tell me you're a Rington's Tea man?

Nah, Yorkshire Gold will do just fine. On around an hourly basis.

But I'd sort of assumed you must have been partaking of some illicit "herbal" tea when composing that last flight of fancy...?

I've just put a little glass in the freezer & in 10 minutes will be filling it with Chase stunning potato vodka. My only vice of the night.

Some of the comments on the saints board are laughable about Elima`s tackle, and innocent foster gets off with no charge !

Braver men than me then... there'll be a repeat of the Wagga "helicopter" incident...

Did you expect anything else from their s?

No not really `Pure Saints ` aren`t they ! They reckon that redhall should have thrown the book at Elima now that`s laughable

You have to see it from a Saints fan's point of view. Elima's deliberate attack was premeditated and caused substantial injury, whilst Fosters was'nt.



We should pity the Saint's poor mites (after a few losses) that have now taken to outright panic by week 7!

Cunningham as a coach - that really is a laugh.

Elima's tackle was every bit as potentially dangerous as Bridge's. Thankfully everyone on here was forgiving of Bridge's minor indiscretion.

Are you currently appearing in "Homeland"?

I’ve just watched the Super League Show highlights, the incident is on 8.24. I’m quite cross with myself; I could have made cheese on toast to go with the Yorkshire Gold.

Don't feed the troll

I think we have conclusive proof here that someone has added a little something extra to your tea...?

You still of the opinion that Foster should have been sent off?

Just as much as Raynor was after tackling Tomkins

Having watched it again, still not don't think there was anything wrong with it. The ball was still in play, the Saints player could have regathered it and then the tackle would be fine surely?

But I also don't think Foster's kick on Whitehead deserved a penalty. It was a bit careless but he was going for the ball. Another ref on another day and neither would be given.

Is it pure coincidence that we've picked up two suspensions in the last two weeks on games featured on Sky? Perhaps another disadvantage/advantage depending on how you view it, of appearing on Sky.

Just watched it again to make sure before commenting...

The ball was never in play as Gaskell clearly drops it. I think he had time to pull out of that tackle with how deep Gaskell is stood when he receives the ball and the fact that L'Estrange next to him manages to pull out too.

In my view Eilima could have pulled out of it and it seems to be a 'cheap shot'. One match ban is proportionate definitely.

Also how anyone can say that Foster deserves a ban is beyond me; if that was a Bradford player you'd be disappointed that the defender not to have made an attempt to try and clear the ball. The ball was loose when Foster goes to kick it and it seems that Foster tries to pull out of it but still catches him with his shin instead of his boot: penalty sufficient definitely, it was reckless and nothing more.

...is the right answer.

Foster does not deserve a ban at all.

I dont like the guilty plea or the ban for elima. One clear thing, the whistle was not blown, so why would the player pull out of a tackle, its play on. The only question is whether it was off the ball/high, but either way, it would never be a ban had there not been the knock on.

If its play on, isnt it correct for elima to be aggressive? we dont expect out players to cuddle in contact do we?

So you can tackle someone off the ball just in case they get the ball? It would certainly make for an interesting spectacle. I'm afraid if Gaskell had the ball it would still have been a penalty - Elima's elbow is straight into Gaskell's jaw - I'm not suggesting it was deliberate, but that is irrelevant as regards the penalty. It is not too dissimilar to an attempted charge down where the kicker has got rid of the ball but is flattened by the defender. If the kicker received the hit to the head that gaskell did then Elima would be looking at a larger ban. I think Gaskell deserves great credit for not milking it, there are a couple of Saints players who would still be laid out.



I think that is almost spot on, though I have come to accept it has to be a penalty, but what would be the outcome if Foster had got to the ball fractionally before Whitehead & had managed to clear the ball before making contact with Whitehad's head?



There is no doubt is was off the ball, it was high. He had plenty of time to pull out.

Agreed.

Gaskell didn't have the ball and Elima's contact with him was late. It makes no difference at all whether the whistle had gone or not.

The RFL banning people after events is becoming a bit of a joke. Elima deserved punishment - it was a late uncalled for tackle, but why didn't Silverwood just put him in the bin? Surely if he'd done that Elima would have got away with any further punishment?

This may have saved us the game however so I can't be too harsh, but there are more and more acts being penalised for a full match / 2 match ban, when, if they did see the event (and gave a penalty) why don't they just bin/send off the player who committed the penalty rather than bottle it and let the next opponents benefit from the ban?

There seems to be more and more "incidents" going unpunished during games and players knowing that if they can unsettle or gain advantage in the game they are playing, the coach can re-group for the next game knowing X player is missing.

Take Elima. If he had been sent off (would have seemed harsh, but to me it wasn't a red, deffo yellow mind), he would be available for the Salford game. Saints would have benefitted from the act and the Bulls would have had to deal with Elima's crime at the time.

Now, we get off scott free in terms of we can have 13 players vs Saints and 13 players against Salford. OK, Elima isn't available v Salford, but it could quite easily have been Sykes, who may have missed out anyway for the returning Sammut.....

Personally I wouldn't mind a few more sinbinnings in games - I know it's a rough game, but there are acts that go unpunished at the time that should allow the recipient of the crime to benefit rather than the offender's next opponents.

Have to agree with Badger, I'd rather see the use of a 10 min binning for minor fouls such as this one. Save the match suspensions for serious incidents. If it had been after a kick from Gaskell he would no doubt have received 10 mins and that would be dealt with. All these hearings/reviews is no doubt a nice little earner for someone though!