Great argument to fall back on, spotting typos.

I do it myself when i've run out of interesting things to say

I love the fact that, according to some, Crookes lifted his own legs above the horizontal. In that case, Seymour must have punched himself in the face too.

Moving on from the Seymour tackle as it is boring now I think the issue with the sin binning was

- tackle wasnt complete
- Thaler THOUGHT it was
- called held/move (cant remember now as I watched it late last night), BJ didnt hear probably due to applause from stand at chase back to prevent try on international winger from a hooker
- as Thaler thought tackle complete & then in his opinon BJ was committing prof foul to slow play down he felt he had no option

Issue hear, I believe, Thaler thought it was complete, BJ saw it wasnt and may not have heard shout so basically two different interpretations will never same common ground found

Penalty was the correct call, it was a technical foul but no malcious intent, and ultimately he landed on his back. The calls from Bradford fans for a sending off where nothing short of desperation. It was nowhere near.

Throwing punches on the floor is nothing short of cowardly malicious play. We saw Radford red carded for it last season. This is where Thaler made a complete joke of himself as he hadn't awarded the penalty and then went back to it because of the punches, looked at it again and awarded the penalty against Seymour, effectively awarding Bradford for punching a player on the floor.

What a beautifully unbiased interpretation of the incident.

Crookes will be ok will an early guilty plea (see Paul Wood). You get a match ban for glancing a players head with your forearm though with barely if any contact, just ask Jarrod Sammut.

It wasn't just punches thrown, Crookes headbutted Seymour straight after the incident, before he threw the punches.

When the ref shouts the tackle number followed by MOVE it's always best not to go in afterwards and push the guy over the touch line. That way you don't risk getting sin binned especially if there's been a clear break and the attacking team and the professional foul option is in play.

This. Bulls fans are viewing it as way more serious than it was. Hull fans are suggesting it was a great tackle. Neither are right imo.

He also managed to chat up his sister, upset his mother and kick his dog.

When BJ came in and had a second go on sky you can hear Thaler saying held before BJ makes contact so sin bin was to letter of the law. The spear was bad but quick thinking from bradford player stopped him getting injured but at same time saved Hull player from getting a more serious punishment on the field. He tucked his body up when going down so that he landed flat on his back instead of his head. What he did was probably the better as game was over already and even a man off wouldn't have helped bulls at this point and they have lost player for a long time if he landed on his neck.

Quite clearly has hold of Crookes' legs.




Hmmm, he landed flat on his back, not at all dangerous????

Hope these Hull fans haven't disappeared for good, lets see them use their 'didn't touch his legs' or 'he landed flat on his back' ones now.

Im a Hull fan. And I thought although not with intent... was a bit dangerous at first and I expected it to be put on report... But once I saw the replay, they did realize and tried to corrected it (So I can see it from both sides) WELL PLAYED! By the way... (Sorry I've got a friend who's a Bulls fan and couldn't resist another dig... LMAO)

Heard any news/rumors on players leaving or staying still... (Bateman/Whithead and so on...)

ARE YOU CONFIDENT OF THEM STAYING OR NOT...

there's already a thread on player movement.

As a neutral I thought it was a bad tackle and I understand why Crookes lashed out. Not saying its right though.

your photos show hm landing on his elbow, not his neck or back! maybe you should wind your neck in, thaler was quite happy to let the tackle go until crookes started throwing punches!

Hang on which is it? Most of your fans think he landed on the flat of his back.



That's the bit that scares me.

Oh and I had to laugh at him 'falling on his elbow', yeah he fell on his elbow and then stopped completely

FINALLY a sensible post. It was a dangerous tackle. It wasn't a GREAT tackle accordng to some Hull fans as he landeed on his neck and the legs came above the horizontal. It wasn't a sendind off as it wan't malicious, it did look much worse on the big screen, but when i watched it on the tele it was penalty sufficent.

Crookes will be in trouble for punching as no matter what happens, you can't start throwing haymakers. But thanks to the super dooper discplinary system, all Crookes has to do is say "sorry yeah i threw punches, GUILTY" and doesn't get any ban (Paul Wood). It's a stupid system that needs changing.

The sin binning was a bad call. Briscoe clearly wasn't tackled, but unfortunately Thaler got the call wrong, and as Hull made a break, Jefferies had to go for 10.

Thought Hull were awesome last night and as ever their away support was superb.

Personally i think Thaler got the call right on the tackle, the player was put in a dangerous position, it wasnt a spear tackle like some are saying, i agree with momentum and the way Seymour tackled him (not malicious) there was only going be one outcome, Crookes flattened, poor reaction from Crookes tho, didnt see many bradford players running to have ago at Seymour, that tells it from a players point of view. Penalty correct but Crookes could find himself in trouble.
Jeffries knew full well what he was doing, he heard the call like most did but knew Hull were in a great position with a quick play the ball, he was a tad unlucky as the replay shows briscoe wasnt tackled completely but in the eyes of the referee, which is the main thing, he was tackled and told the bradford player (s) to move but the didnt and so he had no choice but to sin bin him, unlucky but correct.
Great result for Hull but feel a little sorry for bradford as now gives the dobbins a chance to make the 8, now its between wakey nd dobbins imo.

Agree with most of that but he didn't land on his neck. As the screen caps clearly show he landed on his shoulder. The fact that he was that near to landing on his neck is what makes it a dangerous tackle. BTW it looks like Westerman realised what was happening and was trying to keep Crookes as upright as possible.

Sometimes there's a really fine line between a great tackle and a dangerous one. People who watch a lot of the NRL would probably have just seen that as a big hit as they tend not to get penalised in that competition.

Penalty was the right call IMO, and I wouldn't be surprised if Seymour picks up a ban. Maybe Crookes as well if he lashed out badly enough.

How on earth has this reached 10 pages? It was a dangerous tackle, nothing more, nothing less. The penalty was sufficient. Seymour hardly has a poor disciplinary record, or indeed previous similar offences. He won't get a ban, neither will Crookes.

thaler said he landed on his back, was a dangerous pick up! not the neck!

Foe somebody who last claimed not to be outraged, you don't half go on about stuff.
If you posted a picture of him landing on his neck, then you may have had summat to moan about, as it is you are just moaning for nothing. Get over it you sore loser.