If they couldn't prove the Grade D charge he should be instantly acquitted. Absolute shambles from the RFL.

so are we saying that it's "kinda ok" to roll someone over in this way, possibly causing serious muscle/bone damage? if not then how many players are now going to try it and then say "well the RFL deemed it ok"

i don't doubt sneyd had no intention of hurting mcguire, i don't think sneyd is a dirty player at all, but IF mcguire HAD broke his ankle and missed the rest of the season would the outcome have been the same?

Absolute farce. They take one step forward by handing a lengthy ban to Chase and then leap about twenty steps back with this decision. What message does this send? We don't care about player welfare, attack whoever you want, however you want and it'll have a negligible impact on your season.

I thought it was bad enough that it was only Grade D, but to downgrade it and then still not hand out the maximum punishment in the lower grade?

Anyone who thinks I'm being dramatic, can I suggest you get a 14 stone man to firmly grab your ankle as you lay on your stomach and then ask him to roll over twice without letting go. I'll see you in 3-6 months when the most likely effects of such an attack have been resolved.

2 games is absolutely pathetic but at this point does anyone honestly expect anything different from the RFL?

Punishments are seemingly picked out of a hat, some days you'll get lucky and cop 2 games others you'll be done for months.

If you were comfortably in the top 4 with a couple of games to go why not take out someone from your rivals? It's only ten minutes and two matches after all. Not a huge disincentive

So the facts are:
1) McGuire's ankle is not broken and his injury is not long term.
2) The review panel have seen the full portfolio of evidence (we haven't) and consequently assessed the charge as grade C with commensurate suspension.
3) Lies about the extent of the injury have been posted on here as fact.

Everything else is subjective right? Like the reasonableness of McDermott's immediate and forthright claims of intent and overstatement of severity. Or the matching of a two game penalty to a tackle that was careless but without malice a forethought. Or the appropriateness of Leeds fans saying Leeds should attempt to influence the outcome of due process by whatever means possible, or better yet should try and injure Sneyd on his return. Reputations being enhanced all over.

How is your assumption that there was no malice legitimate? You don't know that, you presume that. Just as 15 minutes after the event McDermott presumed it was a bad injury. Interesting that isn't it.

Here's a fact for you, malicious or not it was intentional. Malicious or not the risk of very serious injury was without doubt present. It was, at best, ridiculously reckless and if you genuinely believe a 2 game ban is suitable punishment for that sort of player endangerment then I question how much you care about the game.

As for the full portfolio of evidence? Who are you pretending to be, Judge John Deed. What more evidence can you possibly need than the comprehensive high definition video evidence that captured the whole thing.

I don't agree with any fans wanting Sneyd injured, but the hard done by and holier than thou attitude of some Hull fans is unbelievable

Which was it? Which part of Sneyd's mind did you read to discover his intentions at that exact moment?

unfortunately it seems McDermott didn't do enough to make sure Sneyd got an adequate punishment for his behaviour. It seems an even bigger deal is necessary if a cheap, cowardly and dangerous action it to receive the punishment it deserves.

It was the bit where he rolled over twice from a stationary start. The human body doesn't do that by itself, it requires signals to come from your brain. That's why it was intentional. I'm not saying it was planned, in fact I doubt it was, but it wasn't accidental so therefore it was intentional.

Clear enough?

Edited just to add that something can be both intentional and reckless. The recklessness is not reliant on an absence of intent.

You seem to be struggling to differentiate between my three facts and my very point that everything else is subjective.

If you believe FC rocked up to the hearing with one video angle and a bag of wine gums and persuaded a downgrade on the basis Motu had a little cry, you're deluded. None of us were at the hearing but clearly something's gone on and been presented to convince the panel that we haven't seen.

McDermott "assumed" it was "a bad one" and deliberate, while McGuire was outside posing for photos with fans, right? Badly broken ankles generally call for immediate hospitalisation.

I'm certainly not claiming I'm hard done to. Two games for a careless challenge, seems about right. Leeds fans are ratcheting it up, now suggesting Houghton or Shaul are targeted for "taking out". Shame on them.

Awkward.

the precentral gyrus is not that difficult to read.

And with 'careless challenge' you win the generous description of the year prize.

And please give me a hint at what kind of evidence could possibly change what I've seen in HD and is absolutely clear as day. I beg of you.

Considering the time and effort you have spent castigating McDermott for making a statement which wasn't true, its odd you have chosen to lie here. Shame on you

Must be the same part as what the Hull fans read to claim that it was definately accidental and he didn't mean to hurt him.

Must be the same part that meant Hull fans could mind-read into the Leeds dressing room just immediately after the game and know for certain that the initial assessment of McGuire's ankle must've definately ruled out the possibility of it maybe being a break.

The Hull fans have been quite embarrassing playing the role of victims in this issue. Blamed McDermott and McGuire, but only a "he's unlucky" pat on the back for Sneyd. Apparently McDermott is way out of line for saying very soon after that the ankle might be broken......what Hull fans on here were in the Leeds dressing room after the match running their own medical examination on McGuire that could prove that wasn't a possibility.

Well, some progress in acknowledging McDermott's fibs, but hard to misinterpret this, surely?


If we're doing dangerous tackles on Sunday, what do you make of this by Mr M?


Anyway, the outcome on Friday is set. We're without Minichiello, Sneyd, Yeaman, maybe Pryce and you gave us a right shellacking last time you visited. It's unthinkable to think I'd be backing Hull KR in the semi finals but if you draw them it might just happen.

Total guff. McDermott said it's a bad one and Sneyd went out to break McGuire's ankle. Quotes on here of a season-ending bad break from Leeds fans. Hull fans simply posting the counter, but less inflammatory position. We're not victims, two games and a downgrade after full consideration of evidence is reasonable.

Leeds fans have been worst since they didn't get the result they wanted.


Him wrote:
Well we play Saints and Wigan just before the split. If the punishment is only 2 games then send on expendable players to injure Wigan and Saints key players.


SmokeyTA wrote:
indeed, could even do it Friday, they are already struggling for playmakers, get Yates to take out Houghton or shaul, take his ten mins in the bin (we would Barely notice) and 2 match ban go through to the next round

rolling thunder wrote:
so a 3-5 game ban ended up with a 2 game ban? hope somebody injures send when he returns, and Ablett should have just pummelled him after the tackle. clearly this kind of naughty person take is not deemed serious enough by Rfl so players should deal with it in the own way the old fashioned way.

Yeah, but Hull fans called out McDermott's over reaction. That's indefensible.

Stop it, we're the victims here. We're embarrassing ourselves...

Those quotes are just ridiculous from some very bitter irrational people.

It was a bad tackle. Just because he plays for your team and you don't want him in trouble doesn't mean it's not. McDermott didn't actually say Sneyd set out to break McGuire's ankle but he almost did when he decided to twist it twice. That the referee having watched the footage afterwards has confirmed he's seen two twists kinda rules out the "it was an accident". One twist you can get away with that claim. Twisting it twice, that's some funny looking accident...."Ooops Danny I didn't mean to twist your ankle just then......Ooops I just did it again, how clumsly of me."

You trying to make out that because McGuire's ankle isn't broken that that is some sort of vindication to the Hull/Sneyd view on the tackle and McDermott. No it's not, it just means McGuire has been very fortunate. Maybe the next time Sneyd tries doing it to someone the recipient won't be as fortunate.

but that isn't what it said is it.

what it actually said was

Now the only reason you would edit out the 'could' part is that you accept the statement was putting forth not an instruction or a wish but a hypothetical possibility. I.e it is possible Leeds could choose to make a similar tackle to take out one of the few remaining playmakers and take the punishment still come out up.

So you aren't even a just a liar, you are a liar who would then invent evidence to try and cover their lie. And after all that effort you put in to parsing your words as well. You must be so disappointed.

I'm not disappointed at all today, two matches is fair. You seem the more disappointed, and frankly irate, but I'm not sure why, with the totally unexpected but very welcome news about McGuire's "broken ankle" and your bye to the semi final. Strange one.

I am awaiting Phil Clarke's view on this incident before my mind is made up regarding the incident as i believe that he will deem that such a serious and intentional incident will certainly awaken the Rugby Gods and that they will ultimately have the final say on this matter regarding the true severity of sneyd's actions,even if the RL Disciplinary committee deemed this incident as being not too serious

Maybe you should sign a half back for 2016