lets face it you won ok..defended well..but the truth is it was 5 tries to 4 and with a so called goal kicker missing six attepts from six..that gave you your win..its a well known fact saints drop to the level of the opposition they are playing and thats why we played e...have a nice day..

who got the points

Hopefully thats true, good news if it is.


And as for the whole "the best team" debate, it seemed to me that throughout the game you were the best team, we can come up with as many excuse as to why we didn't win as we want but the best team on the night won.

And 9-2 on the penalty count = Piggybacks up field.

Can't deny the 5-4 try count but the pratt in the middle didn't give Wakefield a fair crack of the whip(Well his interpretation of the rules).

But come on 'take the rough with the smooth' like we do each season.

Fair enough, and phrased in the manner you do in the first 'sentence' I have no real objection to it. However, the latter of your post, along with some of your fellow Saints fans have made themselves look a mix of bitter, condescending, immature sore losers who lack any kind of grace.

Under the original rules of the game and so for the purists, putting the ball down over the line earned you a [itry[/i at goal and nothing more - it is the kick that earned points.

Don't think we need to justify the win to bitter losers.

We won by playing well. The points scored are all that matter, as Leeds showed us.

it was a cheap shot and should deserve a small ban but let's not go over the top about it.

all those suggesting the ban should be based upon whatever injury James has sustained really should think about what they are saying

It has been suggested that is in the rule book. The extent of the injury will be taken into account and rightly so for a cheap shot like that.


If Stosic had stood up and asked him to do it again his would have fallen out.

If you follow the Saints logic, we won the cup in 1968.

I remember Andy Kelly suggesting this back in our first season in SL I think. Not a bad idea in certain circumstances.

i remember when long got injured for the season (knee ligaments) after an innocuous late challenge from Brandon Costin, people were calling for him to be banned for the season, which is obviously a total over-reaction.

Maybe Willie Mason should be banned for 4 years because Fielden certainly hasn't played since....

We could have used that excuse for most of the season but chose not to. On Friday night you were beaten by a side better than you on the day, why not just accept it and move on and save yourself any embarassment
with poor excuses'. BTW we had Martin, Drew and Blanch out injured I thought that I would let you know seeing as none of our fans want to enlighten you of that fact hth

A violent, pre-meditated, hard to prove I know, assault would be a circumstance when I would take into account the extent of a players injury and their length of time out of the game.

Not to mentioned the fact we lost our hooker after 20 minutes. We also didn't have a replacement hooker on the bench. A disruption like that at that stage of the game is a lot more disrupting than having that player out from the start.

Leeds must have been crap in those Grand Finals then.....

The rulebook does say that the 'effect of offending player's actions should be taken into consideration', aswell as any mitigating circumstances/ provocation and/ or the offending player's previous record. However it's never been if a player is out for 8 weeks due to injury then the offending player should also expect a similar time on the sidelines. Years back, Brandon Costin practically assaulted Sean Long, ironically breaking his jaw and putting him out for the rest of the season and the approaching Tri Nations, yet only received a 3 game ban.

By the by, any conirmation on this Stosic injury then?

IIRC Costin didn't "assault" long and nor did he break his jaw. I was a late tackle that damaged his knee ligaments when he fell awkwardly, as i alluded to in my example above

Ah my apologies I stand corrected, memory decieves in old age. However, my point still remains that it has never been the case that players should be banned for a similar amount of the time as the victim is put out of the game.

There should be a standard ban for whatever offence is committed, however, if, as JT says, the offence is proved to be premeditated, then the suspension should be supplemented with a percentage (30% for example) of how long the victim is out of the game with a minimum of 1 matches.

Using the above scale;

Victim to miss 8 weeks (8 games), offender to receives standard suspension + 2.4 (rounded up to 3) games on top.

Yes, fit to play this weekend and Cunningham is free to play this weekend. Seems the rfl already take into account the extent of injury and length of lay off!

Correct, they do:

Disciplinary panels shall undertake an assessment of the seriousness of the player’s conduct which constitutes the offending and categorise the offence as being at the lower end, mid range or top end of the scale of seriousness in order to identify the appropriate entry point for consideration of a particular incident(s).

(5.4)

Such assessment of the seriousness of the player’s conduct shall be determined by reference to the following features of offending:

........................

(5.4.4) The effect of the offending player’s actions on the victim (i.e. extent of injury, removal of injured player from game)

a miracle............fit to play this week.

Yes indeed, what a shame. He should have been injured for months shouldn't he? Tut tut, how dissapointing for you.