Correct,Peackock would have missed half the season.
As for Bailey not being In a position to defend himself,he didnt want to. He stayed on his knees until Radford had been surrounded.
He's just a gobby third man house who happens to be black,pathetic to play the race card by the Leeds fans.

Radford should have been sent off, It was the correct decision.

If the two players were squaring up and punches had been thrown then the red card would not have been shown but Radford attacked a man on the floor who could not defend himself. Thats a straight red card.

But, Bailey was throwing the elbow in and knew exactly what he was doing, he has been getting away with it for years and this time he got what he had coming. When it happened i would imagine 90% of the Rugby watching public probably uttered the words " its about time ".

The ref was right, And Radford is more popular because of what he did.

People are missing the point here. Who cares why Radford did what he did. Ryan Bailey got what he deserved. Youd think he would have learnt after sculthorpe knocked him out that hes no hardman and should just stick to playing rugby. Instead hes carried on trying to be a hardman and found out the hard way that biff is for the hardmen, not the ryan baileys.

Nope, I would agree with that. The people who are missing the point are those that think he should not have been sent off because it was Bailey that was getting slapped.

Im pretty happy it happened, but the ref did not make a bad call sending Radford off.

I must admit. I called Dave Lister a troll for suggesting he should have been sent off, but after mulling over it, im happy to concede I was wrong and the red card was justified. It was an attack on a grounded man and even though it was hilarious, yes, I agree, the sending off was correct.

Video on that site removed.

Yes they were.

If you watch Bailey he does that all the time but very rarely gets pinged for it.





I thought Radford had more sense than that but the Leeds style of play is to rough people up slyly and get away with it. Just watch Bailey, McGuire, Sinfield and particularly Senior put cheap shots tugs and elbows in the melee of the tackle.



It's the great "coaching" style of McClennan. Takes a good team and converts them into a team that is really on the edge of the laws of the game but no one will take the appropiate actions.




There was nothing about that incident that was "racist".

pathetic attempt to justify Baileys actions.

Have you not watched him play for the past few years,plenty of cheap shots,especially at the smaller guys.Last night he was elbowing Radford,he just retaliated,Bailey didnt get up and go after Radford until he was being held by team mates,typical of the bully,sorry got what was long overdue........racist NO WAY

Bailey is as popular as Newton and Hock. It's FA to do with race.

Which one, Bailey's repeated elbowing of Radfords head??

Bailey provoct, Radford reacted. As per the Mason / Fielden incident recently, they should have both done 10 minutes.

That no action was taken against Bailey at the time for elbowing, going looking for a bit more trouble, head butting a by stander, speaks volumes of the protection certain teams get from the officials.

Why do you consider him to be of a similar ilk to Newton? It can't be that they have a similar disciplinary record because, and here is why the OP has a valid point, because Bailey has never received a red card and only ever received 1 yellow card.

So, why do you reach the judgment you have done?

You see, there are other front rowers with a much worse record than Baileys. Look at how universally respected Morley is in comparison to Bailey yet Bailey has a much cleaner disciplinary record. So what gives?

Considering the consensus of (misguided) opinion from everyone but a proportion of Leeds fans and Leeds 1st team coaches is that he's not a good player there isn't another player in the entire league that gets as much bandwidth devoted to him on here as Bailey.

I know why, the OP knows why. I don't expect any of you to agree or admit it but it's flagrant. It's OK for white boys like Sculthorpe, Morley, MCDermott etc to act like enforcers in the game but when some uppety swarthy lad tries it that just won't wash with the majority of white supporters on RL Fans.

There's a difference when they do stuff they are not bothered who to do it to, any size, weight etc. Bailey will only do it if someone is on the floor on a smaller man, see wembley on Riley, or like we seen last night him trying to head butt someone who isn't even looking.

Yes there is, and I know what the difference is. We all know what the difference is. It's staring us in the face. Some just can't admit it.

For anyone that thinks Radford should have been sent off why are you not saying Wellens should have walked too.

Bailey elbows Radford 3 or 4 times in the head, Radford reacts and throws a few punches. Correct decision is penalty to Hull and either both players in the bin or both players warned. Bad decision Mr Smith.

McGoldrick elbows Wellens. Wellens reacts and drops the elbow on McGoldricks head. Correct decision is penalty to St Helens and either both players in the bin or both players warned. Wrong decision from Mr Thaler but at least he didn't send anyone off.

Why can't the Ref use the Video Ref in such situations? There is a natural stoppage of play from the scuffle. If Radfords punches were unprovoked then yes i would agree with the red card but they clearly weren't. The technology is available and in such situations would not affect the flow of the game so use it!



The first bit completly correct but to suggest a 3 - 5 game ban for provoked punching is a joke. Ablett only got 3 for taking Tomkins' head off with an elbow, Mason only got 3 for stamping on a defensless Fielden. Radford should get sending off sufficient as the RFL wont have the balls to admit their Ref was wrong. Bailey should get one match for the attempted headbut but i very much doubt he will.

:3fic1z54

Nothing at all to do with anyone's skin colour. Baily is a :3fic1z54C:3fic1z54 :3fic1z54U:3fic1z54 Next :3fic1z54Tuesday. Simplez.

The only reason i suggested such bans, is because i think things like this (punches/elbows etc) have been creeping in the last few months more and more and could do with a few bans being handed out to detour others.

This is hilarious - people getting worked up so much over Bailey.

It is well known what he does - he plays up to the very, very edge of what is legal within the game very very well and many fans get worked up about it. But what he does the vast majority of the time is legal - hence why his record is so good.

The same goes for Senior in tracking back and defending the winger when catching kicks - only just legal but still legal all the same.

When fans say he should be penalised it is usually because they see it as being unfair because of ignorance of the laws of the game and they feel victims of unfairness.

It would be like suggesting the police should stop people for driving at 30mph in a 30mph area - because it is on the very edge of what is legal.

Until the laws of the game are changed Bailey will keep doing what he does because it is within the laws.

Im pretty sure your not supposed to repeatedly elbow an opponent In the head.

Officials at certain clubs have far too much influence at Red Hall

Ryan Bailey is a thug and a coward

Most players will wriggle and try to milk a penalty when tackled , elbowing somebody repeatedly in the head is NOT within the laws of the game

I will guarantee he will not do that to Lee Radford again

Each player should have got the same penalty

As for the colour of his skin , you sir are an idiot

If the roles are reversed, this forum will have been full of "Radford was trying free himself, Bailey was holding down, Radford was wriggling to get a quick PTB." I'm convinced that there are people on here who fire up their PC's during any Leeds televised game specifically to start a thread on Ryan Bailey.

That's not a defence of what Bailey might or might not do, more a commentary of the prevailing opinion on here. It used to be Barrie McDermott or Terry Newton, although neither of them got the sort of attention on here that Bailey does despite, on occasion, being far worse in the "thuggish" stakes. Coincidently, Bailey has served less time in suspensions that either of those players.

Lee Radford should not have taken the bait, pure and simple.

That is your interpretation of what happened.

It can very easily be argued that all Bailey was attempting to do was regain his feet in order to play the ball. This happens in every game in a similar style. Yes, his arm connected with the head but can you say this was deliberate with evidence to back up what this accusation - No you cannot because no evidence is present.

What further action will occur - a letter asking him to remain perfectly still until all defenders are well away from him and the defensive line is set before attempting to play the ball and possibly a fine.

The only thing that video evidence conclusively shows is a pretense of a head butt for which the fine would be for.

If you get the chance go back a couple of tackles. Delaney does exactly the same thing, wildly throws the elbow down, in that case to turn himself over and regain his feet. Bailey must have known Radford was there and didn't actually need to thrash around with his elbow to right himself. Radford had no-where to go and took 2 or three to the head. Penalty to Hull. No further punishment required.

Radford took the blows as an unprovoked attack and punched to the head. He couldn't of known that he was, potentially, mistaken (I say mistaken because I don't want to even know what Bailey was thinking). He should have known not to retaliate, he's been around long enough after all. Yellow Card for Radford for a heat of the moment thing to settle the heads down a bit.

Baileys response in trying to get Long, who was doing beggar all, deserved a Yellow as well. Leeds knew that or they wouldn't have kept him off after he was cleaned up. to cool him down. Like a lot of players in his position he's a liability and will be tagged, correctly in my opinion, a thug. He's a brighter thug than he's given credit for is all.

[=#FF0000:ibof4v4uremoved

Nothing racist there at all.

Well thats utter rubbish if it was ever written and you know it (unless you too are ignorant of the laws of the game).

In order to clean up Bailey and see to a wound of that extent a substitution had to be made. If they were going to send him back onto the pitch, they would have to make another substitution.

Only a fool would use another substitution to send him back onto the pitch and not let his replacement do some work

So which is it - are you a fool or ignorant of the laws of the game?

wrong to start with. the penalty was for leeds for radford laying on. had he rolled away nothing would have happened