im guessing had stopped running on a 'still'

Ryan is a winner, something im not sure you know about

like to tell us how many games he has been banned for or suspensions served in the last ten years?

he is a wind up merchant but thug? no

Borderline , but Leeds do chuck about 15/20 per game

When they get pulled their game falls apart , shame they feel the need to cheat , they are a decent team really

At least we agree that both of yesterdays were harsh, so i'll take that as its not often I can agree with a Leeds fans

Thug and a coward , he has a habit of goi
ng hiding when retribution is coming his way

Yeah, Adrian Morley and James Graham and Fa'asavalu will all tell you how Bailey never goes for the big boys.....................

Yes he will happily try it on with them , but once he's done that he always seems to be the dummy runner afterwards , until he is then put on the bench for a rest

Thug and a coward

What a fool you are

Leeds under Tony Smith played Rugby and they were good.

Leeds under McClennan play Thugby and that isn't!

IMO

I sense the green eyed monster!

So if someone has a different opinion to you it's because of jealousy???

Bailey is a thug. Simple as.

Since neither player made a tackle (no arms involved) it would appear that they both had time to adjust how they would collide. That will be taken into consideration by the referee. In times past tackles were made after the ball because you "ducked" earlier, these days you have to stay upright almost to the moment of impact to avoid being stepped.

I think a definition of what constitutes a legitimate tackle should appear within the laws of the game....it would help in cases such as these.

A tackle made after the ball has gone hurts a lot less than a shoulder charge into the exposed ribs.

I reckon the only people who claim that a player was "committed" so could "not pull out" of the tackle are those who never played the game.

I am not talking about decisions like the Child intervention, which was pretty silly, but in general why is it that the players who tend to get flattened by these players who, dinosaur like, were "committed" and "could not pull out" tend to invariably be one of the opponents' main playmakers?

Of course once you know the ball has gone you can modify the way you collide with the erstwhile ball carrier! You don't need "reaction time", you know what he is likely to do and if he does it you no longer need to hit him hard to either stop him from doing it or dislodge the ball. Indeed you aren't allowed to. So this nonsense about being "committed" is mostly just that. You are usually committed just in the sense that there is bound to be contact. You are not entitled to take advantage of that and make it a flattening off-the-ball. That is where the difference lies.

In general play you see this all the time, players rightly go to tackle "their" man but if he has just passed the ball, they manage the collision so as not to illegally deck him. If the players can do it all over the rest of the pitch, why should they suddenly develop an inability to do it when going for the playmaker?

Which is exactly what Meli did on saturday , it was a shoulder to shoulder bump into Burrow , he was off balance and went to ground but there was no damage intended or committed

except in the Morley incident when he wasnt, or the Fa'asavalu incident when he volunteered to take the ball in and sought out the Graham, or the numerous times he ran at Graham on Saturday.


oooooooh the big meanie

it was a shoulder to shoulder bump, and there probably was no damage intended, But Meli went into the challenge and committed himself to the challenge after the ball had gone. He had no chance of hitting Burrow whilst Burrow had the ball, and hit him without it.Its Meli's responsibility to tackle him whilst he has the ball, not Burrows. It was late, it was pointless and offers nothing to the game.

Moore tried to keep Sinfield honest, Meli just took a free hit at Burrow when the ball had already gone

100% agree, thats what it has become, something players take advantage for flatten a player off the ball. Meli could have easily pulled out, he didnt because he thought he wouldnt be pulled for it and wanted to 'rough' Burrow up a little, I have no problem with a bit of the rough stuff, I just find this kind of thing pointless and it adds nothing to our game, Like hitting the kicker a bit late

a

People's reaction to Bailey makes me laugh. Its like to some he's a cartoon bad guy. Seriously the guy's hardly ever been sent off, and yet he's a 'thug'. He also plays prop in a tough sport and yet is somehow a 'coward'.

Funny, I could have sworn that Graham et al had ample opportunity to show Bailey up for the gutless thug he apparently is. Sadly for so many he was the best prop on the field in that game. He ran directly at uber-hard-man Graham several times, and also tackled him front on a few times as well without coming in third man or hitting him high/late. How could that be from the cowardly lion that is Bailey???

Tell us why then?

Is that the best you can do?

Oh dear - Starbug in "post an opinion and not have anything to back it up so do a runner" shocker.

No need for anything to back up what is after all only my opinion



Although if you look around it seems I'm not the only with it

I dont do ' runners ' , I leave that to quite a few others on here

One thing I will say though , the management of leeds Rhino's have far too much influence on the governing body of RL , IMO of course

That explains of course why one of their players just missed a Cup semi-final after receiving the highest possible suspension for the offence he was charged with.

Would you care to provide us with any more examples of this undue influence that the Leeds management have on the governing body which have helped shape your opinion?

That's impossible. Bailey played under Smith and even then he was out to maim the opposition.