It'd be best to have 3 people who have no connection to the game at all, just people who are there to review the evidence and hear a case not only against the charge but for it.

I'm sure there's enough legal minds in Leeds that'd take the job on for some extra pay on top of their day jobs.

Sneyd is 200% to blame for the incident and deserves everything he gets the snide.

Possibly although ex-coach is usually an ex-player and might go down the sympathy route too.

They've found him guilty based on watching actual video footage, it's fact, it's there for them to see.

But then they based their sentencing on guessing that he didn't mean to do it.

So the verdict comes from actual physical evidence.
The sentence comes from opinion that the player didn't mean it. And he probably didn't mean it but surely coming to your ban length with more emphasis seemingly on guess work of the persons intent rather than more emphasis on the actual foul is completely backwards.

McDermott whines about a potential broken ankle, yet instead of being sent to hospital for X-Rays he's posing outside for photo's. He also wasn't scanned until 8pm the following night.

I personally don't read to much in to the squad announcement, but why would you put him in if he was injured?

Why are Hull fans so touchy about McDermott saying it "might be" a broken ankle. Just moments after the game, wasn't like he was saying 5/6 hours later or the next day.

If your problem is concern with how it makes Sneyd look media-wise then I suggest you watch his full interview because most of it is actual spent discussing the refs decision to bin McGuire.....not having a pop a Sneyd who I don't think he even mentions by name, and certainly isn't sat there demanding a large ban (or any) for him.

Might want to stop and consider what some of the other SL coaches might've said in a post match interview if Sneyd did it against them. What Wane would've said had one of his Wigan players been on the receiving end of that tackle?

Players aren't sent to hospital for X-rays immediately. They usually wait a day or 2 for the swelling to go down so as to get a much clearer picture on the X-Ray and a better diagnosis from the hospital. The standard procedure at Leeds is for players to go on a Monday morning (as Leeds usually play on a Friday night). With this being a Sunday game they've obviously waited as long as possible on Monday before sending him.

Sorry for letting the facts sh|t all over a rubbish story.

In real life it is up to the police to enforce the law, but judges/magistrates determine the severity of any offence. Perhaps we should change that too? Ex-players are just as likely to have sympathy with the victim as the perpetrator. The problem with this thread is too many people (& coaches) on both sides made immediate uninformed extreme reactions & find it hard to now back down. Fortunately, as in real life, the judiciary make a more reasoned judgement. Having been on the end of police brutality & incorrect refereeing decisions I am happy with the current arrangements.

'He kicked him because he was trying to break his ankle'. Quite an accusation, and one that's been rubbished by the authorities. He just needs to think before he speaks really.

That's not true.

Firstly, if you've got a potentially broken ankle you don't put ANY pressure on it at all, yet he wasn't stretchered out and was seen putting pressure on it straight after the game. You also go to hospital ASAP with a broken ankle, maybe not many other bones do you do that with but an ankle, you do. You're also advised to keep it elevated to help limit swelling, something else he didn't do.
Medical facts.

So stop spouting your BS.

Something like "Have you been watching our coaching sessions?"

I don't have problem with ex players in the panel (or coach) I just think there should be more than two. It should be a panel of maybe 5 or 6 so less power is in each member. And none have a link to the clubs involved. Even if this decision is exactly the right one. Having a controversial downgrading made by a panel of 2 (the judge is just there to make sure the process is followed) where one of the panel is a former Hull FC player does not look independent. It leaves the process open to accusations of bias. Rightly or wrongly.

Yup, I heard that on Boots N All. It is quite the accusation. He clearly thinks that it was intentional with a comment like that, and luckily the authorities disagree and have looked at it for what it was.

Big Jim Slade wants more than just a 2 match ban.

He wants Sneyd, Game of Thrones style, marched naked down Otley Road through a baying mob of Rhinos Fans, with McDermott ringing a bell behind him chanting "Shame, Shame, Shame".

Perhaps if Sneyd didn't want to be accused of it. He shouldn't have done it.

You can only question whether or not he intended to do it after he committed the act. Sneyd didn't complete his duty of care to McGuire. Mcdermott has no duty of care to him.

The panel may have given him the benefit of doubt. It doesn't mean they are correct or anyone else is bound to give him it.

Get over it.

Over your complaints about Mcdermott? I'm over it. I'm not sure I was ever under it............



Unlike your mum

You really have no idea what you're on about. That is the states advice from the club doctor at Leeds and mirrors that from Dr Chris Brooks at Wigan.

To keep weight off it and keep it stable is exactly what the boot and crutches are for. You're talking about medical advice for the public who generally don't have immediate access to a team of physio's, a doctor and medical equipment such as boots, crutches etc and painkillers.

Once again, so sorry for the facts sh|tting all over your made up, rubbish story. But do keep trying, it's hilarious.

Not point-scoring but why is the advice from club doctors so different to the general advice on broken ankles? Is it because its a sporting injury?

Genuinely interested as to why, if a broken ankle is suspected, it can be left for 24+hours before x-ray to confirm. Surely x-rays can penetrate swollen tissue? The NHS website (and yes I'm aware this is general advice for people without access to a private hospital) says

"If the injury is not severe it can be difficult to tell if your ankle is broken or just sprained. An X-ray is needed to confirm whether the ankle is broken and help determine the most appropriate treatment."

So why wait to have that confirmation?

The bias from the Hull fans is beyond embarrassing.

I suppose now a precedent has been set. If one of their players is ever tackled in such a manner, I expect them to have the same attitude they have now, and believe that a two match ban is the standard for such reckless and cowardly tackles.

Of course, that precedent works the other way too.

Should a Leeds player carry out a tackle like Sneyd's, I fully expect Leeds fans to be frothing at the mouth for a huge ban, be brandishing the Leeds player in question a liar, coward (& whatever else has been said the past few days), disbelieve anything their player says in his defence, and fully believe what the oppositions whinging coach says about the player purposely trying to cause a serious career-ending injury.

You didn't though did you? On Boots N All you heard him say that Danny thought another rotation would break his ankle, so unless you disagree that that's what Danny McGuire told McDermott he thought you're talking even more garbage.

For the last time, for the cheap seats...

[size=200IT WAS INTENTIONAL[/size

You can't accidentally hold on to someone's ankle and roll twice, the human body doesn't do that accidentally, therefore it was intentional.

And here's the thing, if the roles were exactly reversed I'd be resigned to McGuire getting the huge ban his action deserved, sympathetic to Radford's belief that it was an intentional attempt to injure (whilst not necessarily agreeing about the level of pre-meditation) and I'd be disgusted and embarrassed that the club tried to place blame on the victim rather than holding their hands up and saying "Yes, this is completely and utterly unnacceptable" but then I care about player welfare.

You're getting mixed up Jimbo.

It's amount the intended OUTCOME. There isn't a question he's got hold of his ankle and rolls, hence the ban for a dangerous tackle.

The question is whether Sneyd intended to injure and end McGuire's career (which is basically what you reckon), or if he intended to slow the play down & got it totally wrong. The panel reckon the latter. The Leeds Frothing Mouth Brigade, reckon the former.

And every Leeds fan has been completely neutral? OK



The panel are confirming that the process isn't fit for purpose. It hasn't been for some time, is totally inconsistent, and appears to have no regard for player welfare. A precedent has been set, but we'll all have to live with the outcomes. Rightly, Leeds had no input to Sneyd's hearing and neither will Hull to any incident involving a player offending against them, so chelping on here or on Twitter has no effect at all.

We know the officiating and disciplinary is garbage (high shot at Magic weekend gets a red card and sending off sufficient, yet a high tackle that is seen as a "grab" - video shows different - gets nothing) and we're all biased towards our own club, so maybe a club-led overhaul of the disciplinary process to make it fairer and more effective would be a better use of time and energy than the marquee player rule.