Briers should have got 2 matches, one for throwing a punch because he can't take being tackled and one for how patheic the said punch was! Really it is the gutless/clueless Refs that are to blame, 10 minutes in the bin would have sorted it no problem!

No not at all. There is a perfectly radical explanation for this. Briers did indeed run in from some distance but as we all know he is famed for his legendary pace capable of deceiving both the eye and the camera and giving the illusion of being stood next to ablett all along. In fact it is probably this speed which caused a vortex twisting abletts body back towards lee and forcing his arm to be rise as if he had intended to guard against the punch.

I'd hazzard a guess that if for instance I met you in the street and you were looking at me and I lamped you one in the face, I think it would be fair of you to say "he caught me off guard" as I doubt you would be expecting such a greeting, in probably the same way he caught Ablett "off guard".

Just a thought

Disciplinary responses do seem to be closely aligned to the quality of the punch; Justin Poore has laid out Ryan Bailey and Liam Farrell in almost identical circumstances this season and been dismissed from the field on both occasions.

Either Mr Child bottled it, or the officials have been told to go easy on the biff during the play-offs; time will tell. If you've got a game this weekend and an EGP in the back-pocket, fire away - you appear to be safe.

It was Briers way of nodding the head and saying alright,

A fair point. Tho had i thrown you to the floor a second or so earlier i might have been prepared for something

Do you think the fact it was a half back attacking a forward (much bigger than him) had an effect on the ref's decision?

Did the faux outraged Sky Sports commentary team tell you to say that?

Would it change your answer if you thought they had?

I do not take cues from the faux outrage of Eddie, Stevo and Co whose job it is to over-egg their dismal and increasingly sanitised SL product by generating controversy where none ought to exist. If the trivial Briers incident really did warrant a suspension, it really is time to pack in as a contact sport.

Clearly you... like so many lickspittle fans of Sky's failing SL product these days... do exactly that.

So you would agree the refereeing of the incident was inconsistent from previous offences this season?

Fair point also, that said in his chosen proffession where the idea is to get your opponent to the ground on every occasion maybe not.

being thrown to the floor via the face shortly followed by the collar isn't in the bounds of normal behaviour though, don't you think?

I would agree that the play-offs ought to be treated as a different competition to the usual sanitised regular season tripe on offer, and that includes the way in which even trivial incidents are interpreted and administered.

Feel free to boo Briers next time you see him.

I'll scold Ablett for his inherent cowardice instead.

I have no idea - do you?

If it did, then that's another error chalked up to Mr Child isn't it? Unless there's a secret rule book somewhere requiring officials to mentally assign a weight category to each player before assessing their on-field behaviour, I don't see the relevance. If it were relevant, every player could Big Eorl and Ian Kirke with impunity, since they're probably bigger than everyone around them. Conversely, 'Little' Robbie Burrow could windmill at anyone, without fear of disciplinary sanction.

That wasn't the question William, do you agree that the refereeing was inconsistent compared to previous offences this season?

I agree with you that Briers shouldn't have received a suspension. 10 minutes in the sin bin would have been perfectly adequate.

Lets not heap too much praise on Briers though shall we? After all it wasn't biff was it? It was a cheap shot on a player with his back turned. A penalty and 10 mins for Briers. End of problem.

I'd agree on Leeds softcockery though. They should have gone flying in at Briers. Bring back Barrie Mac.

Your loaded question was answered in an entirely appropriate manner.


Indeed, it was a trivial incident which was met with the usual level of faux outrage from the usual suspects on Sky. That's their job... to over-hype incidents (trivial or otherwise) and blow them out of all proportion. It surprises me NOT that the idiotic audience (whom they specifically pander to) should enthusiastically lap up all their buffoonery with such relish and treat it as gospel.


Why? Because Briers effort was so weak?


Correct. It wasn't biff by anyone's standards.


Ablett's back wasn't turned. The evidence is there to see, unless you exist in SmokeyTA world. Why do you insist on making things up? Ablett was side-on and had his eyes focused on Briers. He took evasive action once he saw Briers winding up for a handbag swing.


I'm not a fan of sanitised, softcock Super League and the establishment of bans for nothing incidents such as this. Perhaps you hadn't noticed? These are play-off fixtures, not namby-pamby meaningless regular season dross with refereeing interpretations to suit the prevailing sanitised wind. There ought to be a major step up in quality and intensity and refs ought to be applying more lenient interpretations of the rules on misbehaviour under such conditions.


Ablett should be dropped from the squad for cowardice on two occasions... during the trivial Briers incident and during the next set of six following the penalty when he crapped himself and lost possession at the sight of a few Warrington forwards aiming up before they even got there. 28 minutes and 58 seconds of game time had elapsed if you're interested in watching that gutless effort again.

Child has explained his decision via @RFLReferees: "I felt Ablett’s tackle was on Briers' shirt collar, so legal. I saw Briers throw a punch but wasn't sure of point of contact but felt it wasn't severe enough to dismiss him. I felt a warning on this occasion was appropriate. JC"

Please don't let that stop this funny thread...

It wasn't a loaded question William. I was asking if you agreed that the refereeing was inconsistent compared to previous offences this season? In what way is that loaded? And please answer the question.


I thought most were merely surprised there was no punishment for Briers other than a penalty against his team. An unprovoked punch deserves 10 mins in my opinion. If that doesn't then I'm not sure what anybody would be sinbinned for. Wasn't that its original purpose? To give a player a few minutes to calm down? I agreed, and still do, with Stuart Cummings. A sin bin.


Because it was unprovoked and wasn't in a toe-to-toe situation


I never took you as a fan of cheap shots. That's usually something you accuse Ryan Bailey of. I assume you were similarly outraged by Bailey's recent suspension then?


From the couple of viewings I saw on Sky, and I haven't re-watched it, I thought Briers punch connected with the back right side of Ablett's head as Ablett was turning to walk away.


Neither am I William. I don't know why you think I am. However that doesn't mean you can just throw punches for no reason and receive no punishment. Again, an ideal situation for the sin bin.


So should the rest of the Leeds pack. The next Wire forward that drove it in after that should have been flattened.

Of course your question was loaded - it was loaded with the presumption of inconsistency in the way Briers was treated in comparison to others this season. I'm pretty sure Danny McGuire got away with punching in the CC away at Huddersfield, as did Leroy Cudjoe. So why are you outraged by Briers getting away with a mere handbag swing?

No it wasn't William. It was asking if you agreed that the refereeing was inconsistent. You could easily have answered no if you wished. Your reluctance to answer the question is very strange.
Where have I expressed outrage William? Out of the 2 of us you are the one who appears outraged.

For your information - Cambridge dictionary definition of "loaded question"
[i› a question which makes you answer in a particular way[/i

Now instead of being perpetually outraged at other people's outrage, faux outrage and non-existent outrage, maybe you could answer the question?

Yes it was Big Rob.


No it wasn't. It was a loaded question which contained the presupposition that the Briers incident had been treated in an inconsistent manner in comparison to other incidents of a similar nature. Your loaded question was therefore rejected on the basis of being unreasonable given that other players have been treated in exactly the same fashion for similar misdemeanours.


I'm not interested in furthering your agenda that Briers should have been sin binned on the erroneous basis of you considering it a cheap shot from behind... when photographic evidence proves it was nothing of the kind.

Whether it was from behind or the side is irrelevant. In my opinion it was a cheap shot, and I'm surprised you like that kind of thing. I'd have thought you would prefer a proper bit of biff. But even proper biff still requires an element of punishment. The ideal scenario for a sin bin.

Are you now disputing the dictionary definition of a loaded question?
Why are you so reluctant to answer a very simple question? It's very easy to answer.
Do you agree that the refereeing of the Briers incident was inconsistent compared to previous offences this season?
If you don't agree then just answer no.

Or is it that you know it was inconsistent so can't say no but can't bear to answer yes?
Why not try answering the question about Ryan Bailey? Were you outraged at Ryan Bailey's one match ban?

You can reply with further attempts at swerving away from the question if you like? But you'll look a bit silly. Like you did when trying to dispute the Challenge Cup Final attendance.

Or you could try disputing the dictionary again if you like?

If anyone wants a laugh, go and read the match "report" on Southstander. So awful it's brilliant.

Erm its Southstander.com you know the Leeds section which is written by Leeds fans what exactly were you expecting?