^ utter .

Sorry not Bulliacs post. The chump before him.

Unfortunately, as I am not Ian Millward or any of the Cas coaching staff I am pretty powerless to change the way Chase tackles. However, if you read my previous posts (or Casforum) you will see my posts about Chase's "tackling" technique, he has got away with more than he should too. I was sat about 10m directly to the side of the Hardaker tackle and I said at the time, before seeing any replays, that he would be looking at 4-5 games. I don't know if my opinions 'win friends' on the Castleford boards, many of the posters (like on here) cannot seem to see past their club colours even when cold, hard evidence slaps them in the face!
I don't need to feel like I'm doing my bit to "stamp out" these kind of tackles, that is up to the RFL (and I don't have any influence there unfortunately!).

How am I a chump?

Just because fans on here don't agree with your assessment of the challenge doesn't mean they're necessarily one eyed supporters who 'cannot see past their clubs colours, even when cold hard evidence slaps them in the face'. Personally I think your view on the incident is nonsense but I guess we will see once the committee announce who is up for trial this week.

I rather suspect that Mr Chase might well have received a much longer ban (if the offence category allowed) if the game had been on Sky and subject to various high quality replays. This is another amongst plenty of other issues I have with having video refs at only some games in SL.

Given the effect of the daft kick off time on a Sat and being live on sky had to our crowd I rather hope they don't visit Odsal again all year to be honest. Another kick in the balls for Omar given we aren't even receiving half our Sky allocation!

To be honest, I was thinking more about the Castleford 'victim sydrome' that seems to affect so many of our supporters, and was thinking more about the Chase incident rather than Scruton's tackle with regards to Cas supporters not accepting he hit Hardaker in the head.

Now I'm not an expert on this but wasn't it the agreement when the RFL paid your players' wages last season?

They advanced money due from last year, not 2013... well certainly not 1.2M worth anyway. But best perhaps not to open that can of worms all over.

I don't particularly like the Saturday games, especially at the peculiar 16.45 kick off time. It would seem that view is shared by quite a few Cas and Bulls fans too.

They didn't pay the players wages.

Hows this got to 5 pages?! there was nothing in it!

Idiotic post. There may be threads where one club's fans defend the indefensible, but in this one, saying there was nothing in it is confirmed as a perfectly valid, non-partisan view by the simple fact that the VR, who is not partisan, and saw it in far more detail than you, shares that view, as well as the on-field officials.

I'll be sure to remember that according to you referees get every decision right.
The club tinted glasses was aimed at both sets of fans to be honest, which I still stand by. The annoying/sad bit is that as soon as people disagree then name calling and petty squabbling ensues. As for castleford fans having a "victim complex" I'm sure Bradford fans are in the best position to be able to identify other like minded souls.

Bless.

Your blind belief in the judiciary duly bookmarked for future reference.

thought the tackle by Webster,think it was him,on Kearney was probably worse as he did appear to aim for the head with his shoulder.dont think it was late even though the ball had been kicked away by kearney but he was taken high.

Nice come back. Must have taken you ages to think of that one.

OK - please explain where the [imelodramatic over reaction bile [/iis within my original post.

Except I said no such thing, the point I made was that a transparently independent person armed with full video replays and whose job it is to look at this, said there was nothing in it, NOT that this decision is, like some Papal edict, infallible. If I have to spell it out even further, this indicates that to argue there was nothing it in is proved to be a view which a reasonably minded, non-partisan person can (as he did) hold. Only an idiot or a troll would have failed to grasp the distinction as to make the above comment.



What? Some fans of a club might have a tendency to favour the club they are fans of? Surely not? Why has nobody thought of this before? It would explain a lot.


Meaningless sweeping generalisation alert.

The judiciary? Have you forgotten your medication pops? The judiciary may well look at the incident for all I know, and if so they too will form their independent view, which i don't pre-judge, but I haven't made any comment on the judiciary.

So what "blind belief" could you be chuntering about?

Just because ok?

BTW, anyone wanting to have a pop at Tigertot can go through me first.

When does it get announced if he does / doesn't have to appear before Red Hall ??

Usually tuesday, but Ganson saw the incident and didnt see a problem, the VR didnt see a problem, and neither did the touch judges, or eddie and stevo. The only person who did was phil - wigan orgasm - clarke.

Bans are usually for incidents on report or incidents that the officials missed arent they?

Scruton cannot be disciplined. If the judiciary was allowed to disagree with a qualified video referee who had analysed the video replays of an incident, then we might as well pack the game in.

Charges are normally announced on Monday, with disciplinary panel taking place on Tuesday.