But he's biased

Not surprising as he ducks under almost every tackle

If he did mention it he would look highly hypocritical , just as mr Wane did after the ' protect Tomkins ' quote and then the McIlorum did nothing rant , then again he is a complete Knob

Nope. I was suggesting that the pressure was starting to tell on them.

I hadn't actually criticised them. Not because I think they are right but because I don't need to criticise them, their reported comments speak for themselves.

As an aside, is he really 5'5? He looks shorter than that to me. (I'm not being "heightist", before you start (

), it's just that he looks more like 5'3 to me - he looks a good foot shorter than Peacock.)

That being the case, then you must also accept that Wane and Tomkins recent bleating, making almost exactly the same points is evidence that the pressure is starting to tell on them.

Fwiw I don't think there is much pressure on them, Wigan heavy favourites and I would be surprised if the changes for next year at Leeds aren't already set, regardless of the result friday

Well yes he is captain obvious

Peacock is 6'5 so he is a foot shorter than him

You're starting from a false premise. It was foul play, but it was nowhere near a sending off. I'm not surprised it was ban, but there have been a lot of bans this year for incidents that have been somewhat below the sending-off theshhold.

That's where the second, non-partisan, part of McDermott's comments start to make sense, that the fear of a trigger-happy disciplinary will lead to a softening of genuine RL defence. Especially if you want high-intensity football. It's unimaginable that the McGuire tackle would have been anything more than a routine penalty, if that, in the NRL playoffs or SoO.

It's lucky for Shaun Wane that his playing career wasn't judged by his own apparent disciplinary standards, or it would have lasted about 20 minutes in total.

Don't understand that viewpoint. Surely a ban is effectively retrospective recognition that the offence was worthy of a sending off on the field? That's why we have a "sending off sufficient" verdict available.

Therefore his opinion has little credibility

No it's not really, at least I don't think it is. I think it's recognition that a punishment is required for that action. Prior record is taken into account in bans that isn't with sendings off. For instance, IIRC, a few years ago Brent Webb received a ban for 2 high tackles in a game v Harlequins. Neither were worthy of sending off but received a ban due to the tackles and his prior record.

It isnt just Burrows height, it is the fact he then attempts to duck below the tacklers arm, I am raising this point after your quote because as usual our friend smokey is avoiding the issue

I think everyone had already understood he is the leeds coach, but thanks for pointing it out.

Which issue do you think im avoiding? or is this the part you become really boring and pretend to be confused?

Looks like at least a foot to me, wouldn't be surprised if he is only 5'4 or 5'3.

Looks like that advantage will be with Wigan, Leeds seem to be in meltdown now. Sinfield is the latest senior figure at the club to be sounding off on the McGuire ban:

[urlhttp://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jSMbTOxEjId38me4rKUHEsCsmXJw?docId=N0426611348724711986A[/url

So that's what the Leeds captain is thinking. Lockers will let his rugby do the talking.

Bring it on!

Having stood next to Burrow, I'd estimate him at 5'3 maximum. It really is incredible that he's forged such a career in RL.

It's a shame everyone is talking about this sort of thing in the build up as opposed to how talented both sides are and how good a game it should be.

I think he probably is around that height, though he's a cracking player whatever his height is and Wigan will need to watch him very closely tomorrow night.

was tough and I thought we could have handled it better than we did. Hopefully we'll learn some lessons from that and we'll be better this week."

Sinfield added: "Some of the things that have gone on in the last 48 hours have been pretty poor. In particular, some comments from people outside our organisation I thought were pretty unfair but it's not something we will dwell on."

I'm sorry, which part indicates "meltdown" or "sounding off on the McGuire ban"?
He says Leeds will miss McGuire, which they will. And he says some comments have been poor, which they have.
He also then goes on to praise Wigan.

Yes a very stressed interview, maybe Mr Wane could learn a thing or two about integrity and decorum from Sinfield?

A bit of controversy doesn't do any harm, it helps get the media interested and we would all agree that the sport needs more publicity.

We know how dangerous Leeds are, it should be a cracker tomorrow night. Wigan will be favourites but no one will be writing Leeds off.

Doubtful, as you need a brain and an ounce of humility for that to happen.

See above. He says he's not dwelling on it. It's a bit like telling someone not to think of an elephant. They can't help but think of an elephant. If you say you're not dwelling on something then you almost inevitably are, talking about not dwelling on it leads to you thinking about it and now its all over the press. He would have been in a far better place psychologically if he hadn't commented on the controversy but had just stuck to talking about the game.

Are you offering psychological advice to the 5 time Championship, 3 World Club Challenge winning, Harry Sunderland and Lance Todd Trophy awarded, greatest Captain in Leeds RLFC's history, top Leeds RLFC point scorer who has also captained his team to the top of the league twice?

You think top sportsmen don't make mistakes in their mental approach? You should listen to Steve Davis talk about his mental collapse against Dennis Taylor in the world snooker final, it's fascinating to hear how even great champions can lose their way. Another example would be the Rumble in the Jungle - Ali successfully goading Foreman into such a rage that he punched himself out.