I had to settle for watching the game on telly at the weekend. In my opinion we haven't played well for a long time. There seems to be a lot of frustration in our performances, and dare I say it, expectancy to win. I can understand us being confident, but I do fear complacency could soon start creeping in. The game itself really was tit for tat, and the less biased fans would have seen that, with both sides having sly shots at each other. It doesn't matter who started it on the day, because the bad blood started on the day Mick Nanyn kicked the levelling conversion at POR.
Another thing to consider, is that you don't always have to play rugby in its purest form! The physical aggression, and indeed rule breaking are part of the game. The dark arts have been around for as long as the game itself, and I for one really don't mind it. It's all about planting the seed of doubt in an opponents mind, doing things that they'll remember next time round. It's all part of imposing superiority, as nasty as it is, but those psychological victories are just as important as playing free flowing, off the cuff rugby.
All in all, I think everyone needs to stop with all the,'you started it', caper, and accept that it is part and parcel, regardless of this new breed of purists declaring that it isn't anymore.

Everybody wants to win with classy long range tries, and Harlem globetrotter style plays every week, but I have admiration for the guys who know just how far to go in order to wind the opposition up.
This is the best Leigh side I've seen in my years watching the club, IMO better in a lot of ways than the Fev side that dominated for a few years. If we could manage a game like they could when they had Finn, as well as do what we do now, we would be almost perfect. It's okay saying,'if we play for 80 mins and everything sticks, somebody's gonna get a pasting', but equally we could have that shocker where nowt goes to hand and we get a hiding ourselves. I feel one of the two will happen against wire in the cup.

Ive watched the video too and I dont see too much niggle in those two tackles. Now im not saying it didnt go on before that because it did by both teams but those two incidents I didnt think there was much in it to be honest. Ive already mentioned that Armstrong had lost his head after having a very poor game and getting dominated by Heaton which of course does not happen very often to him. Haggerty Im not sure because the way that Calahane tackles him I cant see how he can niggle in that tackle and again I think he reacts to a hard tackle and the problem in that one was it ignited everyone. If players drag them apart and dont get involved then Im certain Haggerty would have walked and Calahane would probably have got a token yellow card for been punched but involved the incident which is what the disciplinary panel saw as well.

But the disciplinary panel didn't see it the same way as you put it for Armstrong! Did they!

Summary of CM's submissions on the appropriate sanction.....Head butt upper chest area of opponent-light contact-concede may have been some provocation.

Summary of Player's submissions on the appropriate sanction.....Good record. Not a malicious player.

Reasons for Decision...In deciding the appropriate sanction the tribunal accept this is not the more serious of head butts .Contact was not significant but was made with opponent. In deciding the appropriate sanction the tribunal take into account the player’s good previous record and in this instance feel that a 1 match suspension and £100 fine are appropriate.

Fails to mention that Saltonstall gave Armstrong a wink,as he knew he had just sold him a red GFB..

Sorry, I was talking about the Haggerty incident when i mentioned the Disciplinary panel although saying there may have been some provocation is quite ambiguous.

I think I'll leave it there, GFB. Got better things to do with my time...

Yes there is.