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.

No. The Rangi Chase tackle v Leeds was neither put on report or missed by the match official yet a Sky-led witch hunt ended up with him receiving a 2-match ban.

He's been charged with a Grade B, he has early guilty plea available

Not sure early guilty plea helps too much. Iirc if you use it then you get the minimum ban covered by sentencing guidelines so scruton would be banned for sts game. Or we contest charge and worst case is he misses next two or best case gets not guilty. Suppose it depends how confident we are that the challenge was ok.

So just so we're all clear, is a late tackle a banning offence in all instances or just if its a Prop forward on a smaller player? The tackle appeared worse because of the weight difference between the players, would we be seeing a similar charge if Scruton had made this tackle on a fellow Prop? I am happy to see serious foul play clamped down on but this is ludicrous in my opinion.

I would fight the charge if it was me but it will be interesting to see what the Bulls decide.

Rubbish.
Because the game didn't stop immediately after the tackle I am not sure how far back the ref/video ref can go back to review an incident. Can a ref send a player off/sin bin more than a tackle after an incident? I have no problem with the situation where the game flows on & all games are reviewed in the cold light of day.

The photos and the DVD show a clear late high hit, but as usual the fans of the team block it out, Ganson & Silverwood got it wrong, another shoulder to the head, what the refs in our game don't seem to be able to police. if it's late it's late, & the ref & his flag wavers should not mis it

It was late. It was foul play. It meant Cas were without a player for the first half. If Scruton had relaxed himself then O'Brien wouldn't have been injured to such an extent. The weight difference is irrelevant for the pending charge, if a direct cause of the injury.

It wasn't a clever tackle from Scrutes.

However, in my view, had the player not been injured or the game been on Sky, Scrutes would not be up in front of Red Hall.

For me an illegal challenge is when a player runs in with a raised elbow, swinging arm or makes deliberate and direct contact with the head or similar. Scruton was late but his first contract was shoulder to shoulder, how can he be responsible for how an attacking players body reacts to that challenge?

I agree though, if he'd made that challenge on a bigger player the tackle wouldn't have even have been mentioned, how can that be right?