Incorrect. He got sin binned for a penalisable offence while under a team warning. The fact that it was a high tackle was incidental.

So.if he hadn't made the high tackle he would have still been sin binned?

So it wasn't a high tackle in some peoples minds (dobbins).. Just a quick question,

If burns was able to tackle him, why did he go for the neck/head area? Was it a deliberate attempt to hurt crookes or did he his head was a pie that's why he went all out for it?

Where have you seen this? Not on RFL disciplinary web page.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22009165 dont see any benefit as he will be missing due to injury, if he was sent off in the game, maybe then we may had, but the way we played i doubt we would've beaten 12 men for the rest of the match!

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22009165 dont see any benefit as he will be missing due to injury, if he was sent off in the game, maybe then we may had, but the way we played i doubt we would've beaten 12 men for the rest of the match!

Only if it had been a penalisable(?) offence in the tackle. The team was on a warning so next penalty was a yellow

And the offence committed was a high tackle. Therefore, Horne was sin binned for a high tackle .Ipso Facto

when will people learn, never argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and then beat you with expereince.

You'd think I'd have worked it out by now

passion gets in the way, I understand!

The statement made was ' can't recall a sin binning for a yellow card'. All I did was point out, correctly, that Graeme Horne was sin binned for a high tackle.

Sorry I meant, The statement made was ' can't recall a sin binning for a High Tackle. All I did was point out, correctly, that Graeme Horne was sin binned for a high tackle.

Do you practice at being this thick or does it come naturally?

You can pretty much twist it which ever way you want to. Nobody has been sin-binned for a high tackle in isolation. But that's not quite what was said.

He'd have been sin binned for any offence that resulted in a penalty.

You seem to be struggling somewhat with the concept of a team warning. How long have you been following RL?

Deliberate attempt to hurt Crooks i would have said.

Started around the temple and ended up around the neck.

Both running in straight lines so he knew exactly what he was doing.

Do they take into account his NRL disciplinary record? It's all of 5 games since he got a 9 match ban for an intentional high shot, right?

He will take an early guilty plea and will mean nothing as injured anyway. The system works....

Still important it goes through the process,even if he is injured. If he is banned it will go on his record and presumably the next time he attempts to take somebodies head off he'll cop for a longer ban. We "might" gain but only if he smacks somebody in the game pre-Derby!

Given this is the first year of the gangnam style warning, I'd say it's pretty irrelevant. It's always been pretty much discretionary until now.
Think you need to take your own advice on not feeding trolls.

Glad he never got sent off as getting beat by 12 men would of sent some on here into something akin to a scene off of Scanners.

Actually all that's changed this season is the signal. In previous seasons the ref would warn the captain verbally.

Will he be able to enter an EGP since he's already served a ban over here? Even though it was the last few games of his ban from over there.

I don't know what the rules are but the report I read on the Sky Sports website suggested that he would be facing the RFL panel and didn't have an option of an early guilty plea.

Playing the ball in your own 30 is a "try scoring opportunity" where Rovers are concerned. Defending or attacking!