I know everyone loves a scapegoat, but the frustration needs to be directed at the RFL, if Cullen left, someone else would follow the same principles otherwise they wouldn’t be doing their job.

Yes you are correct, but Cullen is doing the RFL `s bidding currently so why shouldn`t he be criticised?



Our game is at a cross road now and if this crap continues it will be finished as a spectator sport.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... view-panel

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... view-panel

Some common sense used at last.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/68405490

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/68405490

I don’t recall the incident of ref contact

Quote ="Captain Hook"I don’t recall the incident of ref contact'" It`s quite clear contact :- https://twitter.com/Yuptoo/status/17611 ... Hxw9Q&s=19

Quote ="Captain Hook"I don’t recall the incident of ref contact'" It`s quite clear contact :- https://twitter.com/Yuptoo/status/17611 ... Hxw9Q&s=19

Quote ="Boss Hog"It`s quite clear contact :- https://twitter.com/Yuptoo/status/17611 ... Hxw9Q&s=19'" I must’ve let the dog out at that point, or I’m blind as a bat! Lucky was only 2 games!

Quote ="Boss Hog"It`s quite clear contact :- https://twitter.com/Yuptoo/status/17611 ... Hxw9Q&s=19'" I must’ve let the dog out at that point, or I’m blind as a bat! Lucky was only 2 games!

I agree he is lucky it wasn`t a bigger ban.



It looks like a deliberate push and not a collision.

What is he thinking. Absolute madness!

I dont want to start another thread so I'll chuck this on here https://www.facebook.com/share/r/Q4gifuS3k4fnzRAD/

I dont want to start another thread so I'll chuck this on here https://www.facebook.com/share/r/Q4gifuS3k4fnzRAD/

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... s-tribunal

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... s-tribunal

Am I missing something or do Leigh seem to get favourable decisions on appeals a lot.

Saints’ legal team are on dual registration.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... view-panel

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62 ... view-panel

ooh asiata is interesting

Interesting how? It's such poor handling of it again by the RFL. They've let him off a significant ban on a technicality because the initial contact was slightly above the knee, despite acknowledging the bad intent and the danger to the ball carrier.



Asiata is going to end someone's career, if not disable them, if he keeps tackling like that. He's so reckless with it, just throws his shoulder and bodyweight through the leg, with no attempt to wrap the arms. Why does it have to take a lad getting his leg obliterated for the RFL to act on it? Why not just issue him a final warning via letter if they've tripped themselves up in their frameworks? Tell him to pack it in and change his technique.

MRP not wasting their time as Beaumont would have got his barristers to appeal it.

New season, same tune.

I don`t bother reading his posts anymore.

i bet you used to love it when jason hooper was shoulder charging people in the head.

If initial contact was above the knee what can the panel do? We're not banning people for swinging arms that miss, or high tackles that 'almost' make contact with the head? There has to be a cut off point of contact that is acceptable, above the knee has been decided to be ok, so he can't be banned for it.



If he gets one wrong he'll get a big ban, but you can't ban him because he might get it wrong.



It's clear that the entire town of St Helens want him chased out of the country for knocking them out of the Challenge Cup last year - the healthy thing is to let it go.

Quote ="Alffi_7"If initial contact was above the knee what can the panel do? We're not banning people for swinging arms that miss, or high tackles that 'almost' make contact with the head? There has to be a cut off point of contact that is acceptable, above the knee has been decided to be ok, so he can't be banned for it. If he gets one wrong he'll get a big ban, but you can't ban him because he might get it wrong. It's clear that the entire town of St Helens want him chased out of the country for knocking them out of the Challenge Cup last year - the healthy thing is to let it go.'" . Absolutely well said Alffi_7. Saddo has had nothing to say about these:- [uThen this one when Charnley is nearly crippled.[/u https://twitter.com/i/status/1764706997042114725

Quote ="Alffi_7"If initial contact was above the knee what can the panel do? We're not banning people for swinging arms that miss, or high tackles that 'almost' make contact with the head? There has to be a cut off point of contact that is acceptable, above the knee has been decided to be ok, so he can't be banned for it. If he gets one wrong he'll get a big ban, but you can't ban him because he might get it wrong. It's clear that the entire town of St Helens want him chased out of the country for knocking them out of the Challenge Cup last year - the healthy thing is to let it go.'" . Absolutely well said Alffi_7. Saddo has had nothing to say about these:- [uThen this one when Charnley is nearly crippled.[/u https://twitter.com/i/status/1764706997042114725

The technique itself is banned. You aren't allowed to spear your bodyweight at the ball carriers legs, ban him for that and the clear intent. They acknowledge the intent and the danger to the ball carrier and still decide to let him off. Even if they decide they can't ban him due to sticking religiously to the framework, just issue him a warning not to tackle like that. The puerile, childish reponses from the usual suspects on here just show how bitter some of you are towards Saints. It's hilarious when it's a Saints player out of the game for 9 months+ and spending 4 months struggling to walk, with no date for a return still. If it's Hayes' knee he points backwards or Ashton's or Lindop's career he ends? I suspect you won't find it as funny then.







The fact he's attempting to do it again is bad enough, why should they wait until he's disabled someone or ruined a second career before acting? Given the context as well, his first involvement against Saints since he injured four players in one game with it, and he goes straight for the knee of another player? It's odd that it's allowed in an age where the RFL is supposedly working to improve player welfare. Your opinions on it would do a 180 very quickly if it wasn't Saints, or if it was Saints tackling like that.

Grow up. They cleared that one as there is no head contact at all. The other Hurrell challenge he's been banned for. The fact a Saints player gets a ban or commits a bad challenge doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on Asiata. I get blindly defending your own players, I do it plenty, but you're wrong on this one. Asiata shouldn't be tackling like that.