The intent of him raising his arm? To gather force/momentum to dislodge the ball. The first point of contact is clearly with the ball/ball carrying arm, he clearly hits with that first then his momentum results in the rest of his arm/elbow coming down. But still, the point stands, if Bridge had intent (intent of what? I assume you mean intent on injuring him) why would he drop his arm onto the ball carrying arm, and not Jeffries' face/neck? The only point when Bridge's elbow goes near his face/chest is after the collision with the ball carrying arm, which makes that accidental IMO. He leads with his arm straight and makes the connection with his arm.

If you want everyone to agree with you, go 'ed, but I won't.

Jeffries has the ball carrying arm to one side. Bridge makes contact with the upper part of the chest, just below the neck.



The ball was at Jeffries side for the entire duration of the collision. You can see it on this near side, by Bridge's hand, very far away from the point of impact at Bridge's elbow. The elbow led made first contact, not the hand.



As you wish.

Just been watching it again on YouTube and the 'ball' argument is nonsense.

He raises his elbow high and slams it into the chest. It then slides into the throat. The elbow is always intended to be the main point of impact. Yes, his hand/wrist glance the ball but only because they happen to be at the end of his arm. The ball, incidentally, is being held to the side of the body, not on the chest.

It's a deliberate attack to hurt the man, simple. He'd won a great tackle and Jeffries was prone on the floor. I've no problem with players going out to 'smash' one another but this was pretty cheap and he'd be better holding hands up and saying, "sorry, I got a bit carried away there".

Red card? Not sure. 10 minutes certainly. The fact there was no punishment apart from the penalty at the time might go against him.

Agreed. I said at the time it should be a yellow at minimum, with red card open for a (very valid) debate. I won't be complaining if he cops a suspension this week, and if he doesn't get one (or gets found guilty but given a fine only), I won't be outraged but will be very much surprised.

Agreed - for me, if Moa deserved to walk then so did Chris Bridge; he stood over a prone, helpless player, squared up and dropped on to him with his elbow in his neck/chin area - a rush of blood to the head maybe, but a house tactic nonetheless, designed to harm.

I maintain however that Jeffries puts himself at risk by making himself helpless - he did the same thing later during the nutmeg incident; it's a bit silly.

Absolutely no one other than chris bridge can know his intention.

I'm not sure about that one, Bridge tackled Jeffries and dropped him to the floor, up until this point it was a good hard & fair tackle, it was the dropping on to the player on the floor with his forearm/elbow (delete as per your interpretation of what happened) that was the unsavoury bit.

Just watched it again - I thought I recalled a pause where Jeffries was on his back and Bridge was stood over him; I was wrong about that - Bridge put him on his back then dropped the forearm smash, without any hesitation.

So - it was reckless, even if he can successfully argue a lack of intent; he should be carrying the water next week.

I kinda want to see a wire player stab someone, just to see the hilarity of them trying to defend it.

Charged with grade B intentional use of the forearm and will face disciplinary. www.rlfans.com/index.php?fid=41&id=262

Charged with grade B intentional use of the forearm and will face disciplinary. www.rlfans.com/index.php?fid=41&id=262

Exactly this. It seems only handful of wire fans that are trying to defend it; unfortunate they are the most vociferous handful.

If you want a sneak preview of what it would be like, read the threads about the high tackle on Lee Briers from our game against your lot.

d!ck

You'd have been hard pressed to find too many Giants fans defending it...

Bridge?

He sure is.

Yeah yeah, go take another look - there were certainly no one on the Giants forum

Jesus I'm kidding, hence the

and

smileys. I'll have to start putting massive disclaimers on posts in the future in 72 point font



As far as wire fans defending bridge goes, the few that have been have been pretty cringe worthy to read - As a very best case scenario in Bridge's favour you could argue that it was simply reckless as opposed to deliberate/hot-headed/thuggery. But that doesn't exonerate him and it's still behaviour that should result in a ban (After all, most high tackles that result in a ban are reckless technique as opposed to deliberate)

For me, I think he lost his head, ought to be 2 games, but will probably be reduced to 1 with an early guilty plea.

Fair point, I did think it was out of character for you...

I wonder if we will see an increase in Red cards on the next few weeks? Royce Simmons was bemoaning the 9-2 penalty count on Sunday but he didnt mention 6 of them at least were for high shots. It was very surprising that no one was sin binned.

Simmons would blame the ref if his toast was burned.

1 game ban... which is fair enough in my eyes.

It's possible. I might be mis-remembering but wasn't there a guideline put out to refs (and communicated to the RL community, which itself is a rarity) by Cummings that persistent high tackle offences were no longer subject to being penalty or straight red card, but that players could be sin binned for it? Or is my memory just making that up?

And now that (a) someone has put up a screen grab proving where the impact was and
(b) Bridge himself has pleaded "GUILTY" to the offence,

... are you going to add the Sky cameraman and Chris Bridge to the people you disagree with?

TBF, you get 1 match off for pleading guilty.

Why no out cry with sammut`s elbow to the head?