...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.

Classy.

Nope, I've read that several times & it's as clear as mud.

A bit of added spice for tonight's game as a result of all this you think? Should be a cracker.

The crazy thing is if McGuire did play, Hull would boo the $hit out of him?! For not actually getting a long term injury. Like any of it was his fault.

No doubt they would. Is McGuire in the 19 man squad?

Lol. That's even more ridiculous. So your criticism of Leeds is that Mcdermott diagnosed a broken ankle to early and your evidence for that is Leeds didn't diagnose a broken ankle BEFORE Mcdermott too early diagnoses when McGuire was still on the pitch. Just like saints didn't diagnose makinsons ankle which was broken on the pitch.


You Hull fans seem very proud of the fact that your player only nearly broke McGuire's ankle.

I give up, comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

As u said the first time. You aren't fooling anyone with that nonsense.

No-one is proud of anything. Sneyd has been rightly banned and a sensible and reasoned approach has been taken by the disciplinary panel.
Look, I don't want to see anyone doing things that can seriously harm people, but, although I am a hull fan, I genuinely didn't see any real malice or deliberate attempt to hurt anyone. Likewise I don't like histrionics from the coaching team of any club, it annoys me.
Let's just move on, and get on with booing Mcguire tonight

Glad that's cleared up

Christ I hope we don't lose tonight

Personally I'm slightly concerned that McGuire's ankle may not be strong enough to get through the match. I think I'll feel better about it if he runs in a hat-trick.

Same here.

Funny that no Leeds fans have mentioned McGuire's comments in heir local rag today. "The incident has caused quite a lot of fuss. I haven’t really got any complaints about being sin-binned, I shouldn’t have kicked out, but it was just a reaction to being hurt and there was no intent on my part. Equally, I don’t think Marc Sneyd was trying to injure me. I don’t know him, but he seems like a good kid and I think he was just trying to prevent us scoring a try. Those things happen in a game sometimes and there’s no hard feelings on my part. The disciplinary have dealt with it and that’s the end of the matter as far as I am concerned." www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-7326997 What was Jim Slade saying about intent again? So that's Sneyd himself denying intent to injure, McGuire saying he believes there was no intent to injure, and the disciplinary agreeing there was no intent to injure. Glad that's cleared up.

Funny that no Leeds fans have mentioned McGuire's comments in heir local rag today. "The incident has caused quite a lot of fuss. I haven’t really got any complaints about being sin-binned, I shouldn’t have kicked out, but it was just a reaction to being hurt and there was no intent on my part. Equally, I don’t think Marc Sneyd was trying to injure me. I don’t know him, but he seems like a good kid and I think he was just trying to prevent us scoring a try. Those things happen in a game sometimes and there’s no hard feelings on my part. The disciplinary have dealt with it and that’s the end of the matter as far as I am concerned." www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-7326997 What was Jim Slade saying about intent again? So that's Sneyd himself denying intent to injure, McGuire saying he believes there was no intent to injure, and the disciplinary agreeing there was no intent to injure. Glad that's cleared up.

There is no doubt in my mind Sneyd did what he did deliberately. Why he did and what he wanted to achieve is impossible to know.

I have always said I don't think he attempted to injure McGuire. I do think he did intended to make the actions he made.

Stop a quick PTB and probably a try, conceding a professional foul. As both Sneyd said himself, and McGuire mentions in his comments. What else would it be?

So the victim of the tackle is the one speaking the most sense about it, who'd have thought it?

Fair play to Mcguire, some of the things that some Hull fans have wrote about is embarrassing (Same as some of the things wrote about Sneyd)

Think we need to move on from this now, I'm sure there will be plenty of talking points about tonight's game.

To take out the best half on the field prior to the cup game in a weeks time? Nothing, there was no thought or reason behind it? Revenge for some perceived slight or targeting? A rush of blood to the head? Jealousy? There are a million possible reasons a player could do what Sneyd did.

All of which you have absolutely no evidence of, and neither player involved has stated any of those reasons. Probably best to shut up and move on, although splurging your nonsense over the internet is one of your strong points.

I have no evidence of anything that was going through Sneyd head. Hence me saying it was impossible to know. I think he was trying to cheat. You think he was trying to cheat. Danny McGuire accepts all Sneyd was doing was trying to cheat. We are still all just guessing. Only Sneyd knows and he has every reason to lie.

Sneyd:
Player states wanted to slow the opponent down and was prepared to commit a professional foul to do so by holding onto the opponent’s leg. Did not roll or squeeze the opponents leg concedes did hang on to long. No intent to injure opponent.

The RFL:
This tribunal find the player guilty of dangerous contact. It is accepted this was not a premeditated act and there was no intent to injure. The player has conceded he was trying to slow the opponent down. It is also accepted that the player’s momentum may have caused him to roll. The tribunal are satisfied the player took the opponents leg into a dangerous position whilst it was vulnerable. There was a twist by the player and the player clearly held onto the leg for far too long.

McGuire:
I don’t think Marc Sneyd was trying to injure me. I don’t know him, but he seems like a good kid and I think he was just trying to prevent us scoring a try.

Why bother going by the two players involved & disciplinary's opinion on the matter, when you can go onto the internet and make up some nonsense theories, that aren't supported by any evidence. All from blokes who I doubt have ever set foot on a rugby league field.

You do realise those are two opinions and one statement from someone who has every reason to lie and you are trying to sell it as conclusive evidence.

I'm not even disagreeing with it. Just saying it's not definite.

ok leeds and hull fans, its been done and sorted, lets stop going round in circles.