Silence is golden

Yep- if the panel say it was ok then that's fine by me.

Retract statements? This is a forum not a court!

Just because he's not been found guilty of the graded offence it doesn't mean the challenge wasn't a penalty.

Read more carefully. The general concensus wasn't saying it was a challenge worthy of a ban, it's saying it was a penalty because there was contact to the head and the decision by the RFL with regards the charge doesn't alter that fact.

Engage brain boys, if you can.

Told you so. Wasn't a penalty or a ban. Refs and RFL get one right.

Quite a number of posters have said it was a penalty (which was not given) and have said it was not malicious in their opinion. I haven't and don't recall many others saying he should be banned.

Or you could continue on the other thread and join the debate about our support as most opposing fans do, those of us on here have heard it all before, we actually go to the games so what's your point?

You need to move on, you have a big game at the weekend as do we, we won the 2 points anyway, next...

Simple fact is that you all got high and mighty because your coach spouted utter dross, then you all got excited when he was charged and seemed to be egged on by it. Now he's been completely cleared of ANY wrongdoing, you're scurrying trying to change, subtly, the meanings of what you all said.

There wasn't even a warning about tackling technique FFS.

On the contrary.

Turns out it wasn't, go figure.

Turns out it was illegal but not worthy of a ban. Otherwise he wouldn't have called to answer would he. We know the 'no case to answer' response after having several players called to Redhall just for an apology.

Come on guys, we can't expect hull fans to be too good at reading

Brilliant argument, shows you for the utter fool you are.

:1ub5pisn







Slagging off a moderator. Naughty boy [girl?.'"

No he's been found not guilty of striking. He wasn't charged with anything else as regards the incident so we don't know what else he may have been guilty of.

Has anyone actually read the findings of the hearing?

It sets out the reasons for the charge, that the disciplinary panel think there was contact to the head with the shoulder. It also sets out the defence put forward by Shaun McRae that first contact was with Robbo' back followed by a clash of heads, he goes on to state that Ellis anticipated the head clash and turned away (which would explain his unusual position).

The hearing concluded that both the panel and Shaun McRae's explinations were plausible and that they could not tell which was correct and so could not find the player guilty.

Both the panel who referred the matter and Hull FC accept there was contact with Robbo's head, HFC contend it was a clash of heads. There is no judgement on whether it was a penalty or not, there was enough reasonable doubt to prevent Gareth Ellis being found guilty of striking. Which is pretty much fair in terms of what they were looking at.

Both sets of fans can carry on arguing whether it should have been a penalty or move on.

Also fair was the panel's view on Eorl and Jacob Miller - "Player applies legitimate kick pressure. No contact with head"

This post is far too sensible and logical.

Sounds fair enough to me - hopefully there's no damage to Robbo, or indeed Miller, we got the 2 points, they've got their star man available for this weekend and alls well that ends well......

Hear, hear to that. Lets move on. We've all had our little digs at each other so lets be friends again. Good luck at the weekend.

I don't recall seeing anyone getting high and mighty about anything, I think most of us said it wasn't malicious, but was a penalty because it was contact with the head.
I don't think anyone on here particularly wanted gareth ellis banned.
strange kinda rant this.

Stop being sensible. It's no fun.

Paul Anderson sums it up: "I may have been fuming over the incident, but I certainly didn’t want Gareth Ellis to pick up a ban. That wasn’t what I was after. My point was that from the footage of the incident we received I couldn’t see Gareth’s right arm being lifted, which meant a shoulder charge. There was contact with the head, which, in my eyes, is a penalty. That’s why Robbo was lying on the ground with his eyes shut. No-one wants to see a player ending up like that. I think what made it even worse was that a penalty wasn’t given, Hull played on and scored a try as a result of it. It was a score that clearly should not have counted." Examiner www.examiner.co.uk/huddersfield- ... z2Yj0N8493

Paul Anderson sums it up: "I may have been fuming over the incident, but I certainly didn’t want Gareth Ellis to pick up a ban. That wasn’t what I was after. My point was that from the footage of the incident we received I couldn’t see Gareth’s right arm being lifted, which meant a shoulder charge. There was contact with the head, which, in my eyes, is a penalty. That’s why Robbo was lying on the ground with his eyes shut. No-one wants to see a player ending up like that. I think what made it even worse was that a penalty wasn’t given, Hull played on and scored a try as a result of it. It was a score that clearly should not have counted." Examiner www.examiner.co.uk/huddersfield- ... z2Yj0N8493

^^ as Baloo said, i think thats what the majority of us thought too....our complaint was we didnt get the penalty and they were allowed to continue and score a try to draw level - it could have cost us the game in the end. Dont think anyone had any animosity towards Ellis, more the decision not to penalise it.

Basically, with a semi competent ref, we'd have nilled Hull...

Oh well, never mind. At least we don't have him again for the C.C. this weeken.....OH DAMN!