I think what you'll find most of us 'frothers' think is that he intended to commit the exact offence that he committed and that's exactly what he should be punished for. Only Sneyd will ever know if he intended to injure, and I don't want people's punishments based on guesswork, just on the incredibly blatant evidence placed in front of them.

It wasn't just a dangerous tackle, it was a completely unnecessary tackle where the likelihood of serious injury was incredibly high and that should carry a punishment commensurate with that risk and danger.

And can we please not pretend that both Hull fans and the Hull club itself haven't pretended that Sneyd's role in this, and indeed his roll was entirely accidental - that's why the need for the big capital letters, because on the east coast there seems to be a serious misunderstanding of what intentional means.

With all due respect, sir, you're wrong.

It was blatant to you and some salivating supporters, not to anyone else, hence 2 games.

For a potential break in the ankle, the stuff he's saying is just rubbish.

McDermott made more of it than it was. Why? Well that's open to debate, but no one knows.

So you genuinely didn't see Sneyd hold on to McGuire's ankle and then intentionally roll? Twice? You've got vision issues.

Even the disciplinary committee acknowledged that's exactly what they saw.

In fact, I think that's exactly what everyone saw apart from the most one eyed Hull fans.

Yesterdays chip papers, but hopefully there's some consistency in future incidents(doubt it). Intentional or not it's an illegal tackle and has been punished. For me I think it was retaliation for the tackle Danny put on him when Sneyd's legs went in the air. I thought it was a penalty on past tackles that have resulted in a penalty. Again the refs consistency comes in to question especially Hicks. Who IMO is pretty inconsistent a vast majority of the time.

What it has done is intensify the match on Friday. If Danny plays I'm sure we'll see far more frothing at the mouth from the Hull fans

And interesting to see if anyone puts a shot on Houghton after the slaps he aimed at Danny.

Has the ref been announced yet? If its Hicks or Child then I can see it boiling over pretty quickly.

I'm obviously not a medical or sports injury expert but having spoken to people in the past who could be described as that (Dr Brooks being one of them) plus I got to speak to radiographers a lot in my old job, it's apparently because the swelling can make diagnosis of an injury more difficult. This isn't on every occasion, but often it can make any fracture difficult to see on an Xray as the swelling can effectively push the bone together and "close up the gap". Also, it makes diagnosis of non-bone injuries ie ligaments etc more difficult as the person can't often move the ankle (in this case) properly anyway due to the swelling.

It's apparently partly why general medical advice is always to put ice on swelling to reduce it. Not just to make it more comfortable for the person but also so that if/when you go to hospital it makes it easier for them to diagnose.

The advice for the general population to see a doctor/hospital straight away (rather than wait like the sportspeople) is probably because they don't want you and I to make silly mistakes like trying to walk normally on an injured ankle and do more harm. Whereas sportspeople generally get seen immediately by a physio and a doctor who give them immediate advice and can give them things like painkillers, crutches and anti-inflammatories.

So they've effectively already received the immediate care that you or I would have to go to hospital to receive in the first place.

I was the same as you, wondering why they waited before sending players to hospital as I thought surely it'd be better to get there as soon as possible. So when, a couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to talk to Dr Brooks I asked him!

Fair enough. My barrack room medical certificate well and truly torn up

Is that an oxymoron?

Well, he's not the sharpest tool in the box...

James Child is the referee, it was supposed to be Thaler, but he's still unwell.

I give it 10 minutes.

Mine too! Things move so quickly in modern pro sport/conditioning/physiological stuff these days. It's why I try and go to any coach education sessions with conditioners and coaches because they give you an opportunity to talk to people at the top end and you find out so much about the modern game that you probably don't realise just from watching from the terraces. Plus I'm a massive geek.

It is a serious accusation, but then again it was a serious foul committed by Sneyd. And it's not like the authorities have "rubbished" McDermott's view, they've given the player the benefit of the doubt as they usually do, which is generous in this case when Sneyd claimed not guilty and tried pinning the blame on McGuire......a viewpoint that truely was "rubbished" by the authorities.

How do you explain Makinson hobbling off the pitch with a broken ankle? He wasn't on a stretcher. Stop spouting your BS

I knew someone would try and make comparisons with courts of law.

The thing with the siding with the victim in these cases is the victim isn't there. Their's no side of the story from the other player/team. Really when you think about it, it's pointless really inviting the player to explain himself because they'll only make excuses and claim accidental which the panel will then sometimes let them sway them into showing the player leniency/sympathy.

Why don't they just base their decision on what they see. Do referees blow their whistle and then ask the player if he meant it or to explain his side of the story, no they base their decision on what they've seen and not one players version of events. Just let the panel review the incident and judge it on what they see, not what the accused says because he'll always be trying to play innocent.

McDermott will have had what, about 15/20 mins in the changing rooms before going out to speak to the media? The reason he'll have said when asked the extent of McGuire's injury "I don't know, it might be a broken ankle"......is because in that short time frame he'll have spent with McGuire, he won't have know for sure what it was, but that a broken ankle was a possibilty.

Hull fans might argue that well he shouldn't say that if he can't be sure as it's not fair to Sneyd to claim this. I'm sorry but what responsibility or sympathy for Sneyd should McDermott have when he's just seen the guy injure his starting halfback. You want/expect him to sit there and bite his tongue for Sneyd's benefit? Likewise Hull fans complaining that Leeds hadn't come out on Monday/Tuesday before the disciplinary telling everyone the results of McGuire's injury.......but again why do Leeds have to put out a press release concerning the fitness of one of their players just to satisfy the Hull club and their desired timeline?

All this trying to make McDermott the bad guy in the incident (honestly think some Hull fans think he's done more wrong than Sneyd in this whole issue) is just a pathetic attempt to divert the attention/blame off their player really.

I see FC fans are busy embarrassing themselves on this thread.

I really hope someone in the near future tries to seriously injure a player from their own total joke of a team and see what their muppet 'supporters' say then.

Maybe at the time they didn't suspect it to be broken, unlike Leeds? (If you take BMacs word for it).

So if McGuire had broken his ankle he would be carried off on a stretcher because Leeds suspected it and you can't hobble off on a broken ankle unlike Makinson who did hobble off with a broken ankle but could only do so because Saints didn't suspect it.

Whooooosh.

nice try but your aren't going to fool anyone with that

The 2 Kr clowns have surfaced I see !!!!

Time to move on ... Bad tackle , no intent to injure the player , 2 game ban , danny McGuire fit to play ....

Roll on tomorrow and may the best team win

The hypocrisy on these boards is laughable. Half the people on here calling Leeds fans cheats and whingers for reacting badly to a nasty looking challenge, are the same people who reached for the pitchforks and almost died of rage when Hardaker blew a kiss at another player.

Well, you did kind of miss the point.
That point being that McGuire's ankle was never suspected as broken until BMac said so after the game. Hence he hobbled off like Makinson. HTH.

...and you know it wasn't suspected because of what exactly? Another comment with zero evidence.

All I know is I watched the tackle via an NRL discussion board and it really didn't look good at all. If McGuire didn't get badly injured its far more due to luck than Sneyd's judgement. It was clearly a deliberate act, at the least without any thought as to consequence. I'd guess that the panel had heard McGuire's ankle wasn't broken by the time they sat, as I think his ban would have been much longer if it had been.

I also don't want to see Sneyd wiped out forever. I expect he's a good enough lad and likely to never do this sort of thing again. I can't him seeking to deliberately injure an opponent, and since McGuire seems relatively OK, hopefully everyone will move on.