Are they suggesting because he's a big lad he can't tackle like a big lad but has to tackle like a pussy instead?

RFL just tweeted the outcome of the case before, so hopefully we won't have to wait too long to find out about Mickey

Lost his appeal according to James Smailes.

He's been given an extra game ban for appealing and contesting, and failing on appeal!

Done - 2 matches we move on

Spoilsport.


Couldn't even get a nibble.

Just watched the tackle on FC Live. Owen is driving forward with his legs when Paea tackles them to halt his movement. The game is officially a joke now if you cant tackle legs to stop a player from moving forward. Absolute joke.

Well we thought they were bent and full marks to them for proving us right. What a corrupt bunch they are. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Seems to me that both Hull clubs get a raw deal in these matters and no doubt feeling some payback for their stance on the changes to the game.
Best thing we can do now is get all our players to adopt the 'Matt Bowen' tackling technique as attempted decapitation seems ok by the RFL but actually tackling round the legs is now an offence. Have to say I have seen tackles this season where players both ours & opposing players have hit the knee area while 2 players are already involved in tackles.
The sport and the RFL disciplinary is making a mockery of the sport with decisions like this.

Independant legal option?
I know it is costly but if it is obvious to absolutely everyone except the muppets at Red Hall then an independant enquiry would show that the judiciary is failing the sport in a massive way, both in inconsistancy of applying the law and failure to identify what is & what isn't foul play..
Which would be for the betterment of the sport and give better protection for players and keep the innocent out of pokey.

I've never agreed with any system that gives you a bigger fine/suspension for having the temerity to challenge, this doesn't even happen at a criminal level.
The system is corrupt/massively broken as far as I can see and the sooner we get the clubs to press for change the better..

Just watched the 'incident' now!
Oh f***** dear! Jokers!!!!

Can't go in third man around the legs. You run the risk of getting a ban. Don't they view it as premeditated contact

I haven't seen the incident (anyone got a link?) and I hate the cannonball tackle and think it should be punished much more heavily than a shot to the head. However, just because a player comes in round the legs as 3rd man it's not automatically a dangerous tackle. If a player comes in from the side and attacks the side of the knee, that is dangerous because knees shouldn't bend that way. Coming in from behind is different and only becomes dangerous if the other players effecting the tackle then push the player back over himself.

Its on Hulls website.Ridiculous decision

Just seen it. Nothing tackle, he takes his time, comes from behind, clamps the legs rather than hits through them, and they bring the attacker down in a controlled manner. If every player who did a tackle like that got picked out there would be 50 bans per week.

That said Tansey's ban for a "push" on the ref is even worse. I don't know if anyone else has seen it but Roby is running backwards straight into him and Tansey puts his hands out to stop him. Paea's ban might be a bad decision, but I don't think I've seen a worse decision than that one.

That's possibly the worst decision I've ever seen! They should be ashamed of themselves! I could look through all the weekends games and find 100 similar incidents. They have well and truly lost the plot and are ruining the game. Absolute clowns the lot of them.

Have a look at this on the HDM website. Spot the difference www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... y.html?001 One gets nothing another gets a 2 match ban. Love to know how the RFL can justify this inconsistency.

Have a look at this on the HDM website. Spot the difference www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... y.html?001 One gets nothing another gets a 2 match ban. Love to know how the RFL can justify this inconsistency.

One plays for Hull the other for Wigan

Flowers second one is dirty. No attempt to make a tackle, just drives his shoulder through. Textbook cannonball.

Think he got sin binned, would have taken that for Micky

Quote ="Dave K."Have a look at this on the HDM website. Spot the difference www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... y.html?001 One gets nothing another gets a 2 match ban. Love to know how the RFL can justify this inconsistency.'" Penalty and yellow card apparently for the second one, but from the panel? "No charge - Level of force used is not overly excessive. Force is applied in the direction of the knee joint. Sin Bin Sufficient." So that's OK then. I'm not moaning just because its a Hull player banned. If this is the actual approach in 2014, let's at least make it consistent across all teams. I wonder how many 2 match bans will be handed out next week?

Quote ="Dave K."Have a look at this on the HDM website. Spot the difference www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... y.html?001 One gets nothing another gets a 2 match ban. Love to know how the RFL can justify this inconsistency.'" Penalty and yellow card apparently for the second one, but from the panel? "No charge - Level of force used is not overly excessive. Force is applied in the direction of the knee joint. Sin Bin Sufficient." So that's OK then. I'm not moaning just because its a Hull player banned. If this is the actual approach in 2014, let's at least make it consistent across all teams. I wonder how many 2 match bans will be handed out next week?

well that's fair enough and all well and good, but will we see all players going in as third man getting a 2 game ban? thought not, especially if you are a wigan player

i don't care what the rules are as long as they are applied consistently

Where's that rule then? It happens in 90% of tackles. It's been banned below the knee in the NRL, but not here.

He should have got 6 games.



But in all seriousness it's nothing like a cannonball what so ever. I bet secretly the appeal panel thought there was nothing in it but found themselves in a tricky situation in that they either back their colleagues up or make them look like clueless fools.
I would imagine if they agreed with the first panel that they would have thrown another game at him.