You've forgot to add the Wigan Thugby Tolerance factor though of 0.5, quite suprised ISA kept his cool and behaved himself. I,m assuming the coach Peet is trying to reduce the amount of grubiness in his team and will take time to switch those Wigoon Players brain cells.

P.S. Saw your post that you deleted by the way, that was a good move.

I didnt delete anything it was done for me,thanks for your concern.

Stains are the bench mark everyone agrees,but you always jump on Wigan with relish and cannot stop your self from insulting anything to do with wigan.
Why bring Willie into this as this was about last friday with Stains being cited more than Wigan accept it your players were the biggest culprits in this game.

Stains have had more players banned this season so far than Wigan so you could be on the way to being a grubby outfit.

From the game between Leeds and hudds, Leeds had 6 players cited, hudds had zero.
Of Those 4/6 were for late hits on The the passer / kicker, (incidentally all on the same player)……… so clearly Leeds had a less than squeaky clean game plan to hit fages, it was more than obvious during the game- he didn’t remain on his feet once after kicking at the end of a set. This in itself should result in some sort of club warning, if as the RFL keep saying we are all about protecting players. That’s what Leeds have now resorted to in desperation to get a point.

If they only did late hits on your kicker then yes the team needs a warning, really obvious dont you think.

reminds of the time stains players went for the standing leg of the player,thankfully that stopped.

Well he’s not playing Monday so looks like their tactics definitely had an impact. I would imagine if he could he would be playing against his old club.

Hope you win

There is absolutely no other reason to do what he did, other than to cause serious injury.

That’s the reason those tackles are banned

Well Hurrell got a ban did the a crusher tackle is it because he intended to cause serious injury.
Thats the reason those tackles are banned

Believe what you want but you still can't prove intent.

Big difference between the Hurrell one and the Powell one, the Hurrell one didn't really show intent and left space for head movement thats why he only got a 2 match ban.

The Powell one was horrendouson on Bennison, he was already tackled around the legs and Powell just needed to lay on to slow the ruck. Instead he picked him up and then slammed him down almost snapping his neck, his only defence will be a brain fart but the disciplinary will probably judge it very serious and a 6 match ban minimum.

Some of the Wigoon fans are saying he deserves an 8 match ban.

I dont think you understand as your hatred is corrupting your brain,

They both were crusher tackles one far worse than the other and will get dealt as it should be upto 8 matches I agree with.
So as the other one deserved a 2 match ban obviously he was not trying to break his neck you and your demented stain fans would have us believe the other one would mean he was trying to injure him just maybe miss a few matches to use the same analogy.

Dont you get it we are in agreement about the severity of the ban.

You have to smile when one of the commentators said, about Powell, "he's not that kind of player" ??
Clearly he IS that kind of player. Whatever it was that caused him to do something stupid, it was Powell and Powell alone that chose to put in a "crusher" and it seems ridiculous that he will be playing for Wigan today (and that it wasn't a straight red).

I think maybe the big occasion brings out "that kind pf player" in him, correct me if I am wrong I seem to remember he had a short history of attacking the knee joint a few seasons back. Maybe something is dormant in him to do this kind of stuff because generally he is just a tackler and doesn't do anything special or creative compared to other no 9's.

Hopefully Matty Peet sorts it out, seems a decent coach wanting to play more Rugby and reduce any Thugby intentions.

Ok no problem judder,love banter even the irritating ones

Quote ="Trainman" Smithies was leading with the head most of the game and it wasn’t just with Knowles it was with others. I,m pretty sure he had form for head butting and a crusher tackle and got punished for it. There was also an instance of putting his studs on Lussicks head which for some reason didn’t get picked up by the disciplinary maybe Ben Flower was on the panel over the weekend. https://www.totalrl.com/morgan-smithies ... y-charges/

Quote ="Trainman" Smithies was leading with the head most of the game and it wasn’t just with Knowles it was with others. I,m pretty sure he had form for head butting and a crusher tackle and got punished for it. There was also an instance of putting his studs on Lussicks head which for some reason didn’t get picked up by the disciplinary maybe Ben Flower was on the panel over the weekend. https://www.totalrl.com/morgan-smithies ... y-charges/

The 2 players wouldnt back down and so they shouldnt,nothing in it as per the panel

lol ok m8

I see the obligitory ban for a Saints player has been used again. It's so consistent they could probably base the interest rates on it.