Phil Clarke is miserable about everything. When is Vossy coming?

take these Rugby Gods actions lightly if you will

nice cover. no-one noticed.

He has to play for Hull. The rugby gods have pre-emptively spoken with a furious vengeance.

2 games for that is unbelievable! The RFL are yet again showing a total disregard for player welfare. There is no deterrent to players deliberately injuring other players (I'm not suggesting Syned did that), as they will get a minescule ban. Snyed will be back playing next weekend for twisting a prone players leg and applying a lot of force to a vulnerable joint.

Referees are often scared to use their cards. And the RFL disciplinary panel seem hell bent on giving the lowest possible sentence. This indirectly encourages reckless and dangerous play. We are a tough sport, too tough for there to be next to no punishment for illegal play. We need to get rid of this ridiculous EGP. Why should you be given a reduced punishment for admitting an offence. Again, the system is too generous to those who commit foul play. We need set bans to discourage thuggery. Brett Ferres is another example, he throws a punch, and what does he get? 2 matches. There should be automatic bans for certain offences. For example, punching - minimum five game match ban. Chicken wings/cannonballs/crocodile rolls - minimum 5 game ban.

We need a system to keep the sport tough legally, but discourage reckless tackles and punish offenders. Harsher bans are the only way to discourage such play. And we also need to cut this "well, he's not usually a dirty player" crap out. If a player commits an offence, then we should stop being so lenient just because he hasn't done it before. The RFL claim to be all for player welfare, if they truly are then they need to get tough.

Not saying that you've said this (I haven't read all the thread) but it is amusing how many fans were using McGuire's injury as a reason for the long ban (stating that injuries occurred would be taken into consideration for the length of the ban); and be that he's not seriously injured, it doesn't matter and it's just fortunate he's not injured. Can't win with some people.

Luckily, the RFL agree that it was an accident and haven't gone over the top like and of the embarrassing comments on here!

To be fair, and this is something I said on the Leeds board. The actual injury should be treated pretty irrelevantly. The action and its potential for injury are the important things.

the tackle is nowhere near as bad as the leeds fans on here seem to think.... the injury was unfortunate, but this kind of tackle happens all the time... it doesnt mean its right.... its just easy to get in that position when playing.

Sneyd never tried to injure the player, just get the advantage in the tackle.

2 games is fair given the players disciplinary record.... it was an accidcent, move on.

A lot of people seem to be mistaking a plausible lack of intent to injure for an implausible lack of intent. The movement Sneyd effected was entirely deliberate and intentional and fraught with risk for whoever was on the receiving end. The lack of serious injury was good fortune and had nothing whatsoever to do with whatever Sneyd intended - you can't turn an ankle 360 degrees and reasonably expect not to cause an injury.

To all those saying it wasn't that bad - yes, it really was.
To all those saying you see these tackles all the time - no, you really don't.

The most embarrassing comments on here are from people who seem to think tackles like that are anything other than utterly unacceptable. If you don't get that you don't understand how the human body works and you clearly have no interest in player welfare.

And you have no comprehension of the meaning of the word accident.

Agreed! To the point where in society, be it in industry, the police or law accident is seldom used. The word is replaced by incident. Accedent suggests knowbody is to blame.

In this situation anybody claiming Sneyd injuring McGuire is an accedent is foolish.

Sneyd like everybody in the game knows the potential for injury to happen by taking those actions.

If when driving you go up the ar$e of the car in front it's your fault. Does anybody mean to do it? Maybe not but you are to blame, as you actions caused it. If you followed the rules (safe stopping distance) it wouldn't happen. Just like Sneyds actions caused the incident which results in injury. If Sneyd let's McGuire up and get a quick play the ball then no injury.

I was no accident.

It's not easy to get in the position Sneyd does "accidently" at all.

When he first hits the ground he lands on his stomach, being very generous you can say momentum has seen him roll over on his back. But their was definately no momentum in him then rolling again to end up on his front whilst having a tight grip on McGuire's ankle. It was a choice he made (not accident) to roll over again and if anything he should've got a longer ban than he has just for sheer stupidity if he doesn't realise what he is doing with that extra roll whilst holding the ankle could end up doing to the opponent. People arguing that he's trying to slow down the PTB, yes he is but he could easily achieve that by just holding onto the ankle and not rolling his body.

You can't watch that extra roll of his body and claim accident.
You can watch it and think he didn't mean to hurt McGuire, but all that does is highlight extreme stupidity from him if he doesn't recognize what he was doing could cause injury.

So, how many posters have said that the tackle was 'utterly acceptable', as in nothing at all wrong with it?
The massive over-reaction by certain people on here is equally embarrassing, describing it as a leg breaking crocodile roll, there's maybe one or two whom have said there was nothing at all wrong with it which is clearly incorrect but the level of frothing by many Leeds fans & indeed Maccy D is enough for a solid round of cappucino's.

I'll repeat what I said, as you seem to be intentionally misinterpreting it...The most embarrassing comments on here are from people who seem to think tackles like that are anything other than utterly unacceptable...by which I clearly mean that, IMO, if you defend this sort of challenge at all, in any way, then I think you're wrong. Not if you say there's nothing wrong with it at all (as some have, and you go on to admit that) but if you say it's not that bad. If you say that you effectively condone it, and it's a tackle that has no place in our game.



What other way is there of describing it? You don't need an advanced understanding of bio-mechanics to know that if you forcibly twist an ankle round 360 degrees then the most likely result is breakage and/or ligament damage, and that's what Sneyd did.

I'll place a bet with you, we'll get two muscular 14 stone men to tackle us both from behind (ooh err) and then when we try to get up mine will just hold on to my leg and yours will do what Sneyd did. Immediately after we'll have a race for £100 of your money. A week later we'll have a race for £5,000 of my money. Let me assure you I'm no sprinter, but I won't need to be, because you'll still be struggling to walk.



I know! What other bunch of fans would care if their main playmaker was taken out of the game (and potentially the season) by a dreadful and totally illegal challenge that then gets only a light slap on the wrist? What a uniquely embarrassing bunch we are.

This is what you get when 2 of the 3 members of the panel have an affiliation to Hull FC.

If true what you say( and i do not care what Sneyd got ) it should not be aloud when they have these panels they should be no person on the panel that has been involved to the clubs or players that are up before them

Sense at last...

The only embarrassing thing about this situation is that Sneyd only got a two match ban! Knew the RFL will bottle it.

spiting 4 matches, break an ankle 2 games.

Are you sure?

Did he not? just going off first reports

www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?6576 Disciplinary report is up, explanation for the downgrading included, Leeds fans might want to avoid this bit of the thread.

www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?6576 Disciplinary report is up, explanation for the downgrading included, Leeds fans might want to avoid this bit of the thread.

Nope, it doesn't look like it, reports last night that he will be back in 2/3 weeks.

And just when it was starting to calm down on here.

There doesn't seem to be any justification for the downgrading there from the panel. I don't mean justification I agree with. I mean the panel explaining why they downgraded it.

This is there explanation of why they downgraded the sanction

submissions on the appropriate sanctionAccepted not a deliberate act-trying to stop the opponent playing the ball-makes an initial grab and rolls over with opponents leg-player partially regains his feet-rather than release player rolls over taking opponents legs across a 360 degree-dangerous technique-unnecessary and potential for serious injury.

Which is still a grade D offence, add into that he shows no remorse (not guilty plea entered) there's no grounds at all for a downgrade to a grade C.