OK then mate I'll have a final last say if you don't mind. Before I do can I just say that we struggled to get tickets but were rescued very late by the HKR ticket office who asked if we would mind sitting in with HKR fans. We said that it was no problem as far as we were concerned and we were looked after very well from the moment we parked up. Great banter with the fans around us and handshakes all round at the end.

I don't know if fans on here missed it or have just chosen to ignore it but Micheal Shentons statement on the incident made my mind up. It was obvious as he left the field that he wasn't happy and as one of the nicest, most honest and respected players in super league you have to respect what he said. I have never heard him say a bad word about another player in all the times I've watched him (fair enough that doesn't mean he hasn't) but he said after the game that Boudebzas tackle was reckless. I can only assume that he passed his Feelings on to Powell.

So do you chose to disbelieve such a well respected ambassador to the sport as Shenny who was better placed than any one to see and feel what happened or do you slavishly follow your adored Mr. Hudgell. The same Mr. Hudgell who lambasts the panel for having a member on it who never played a game of rugby league when as far as I know he never played himself.

Why does he say that Boudebza is distraught when one of the reasons the RFL gives for the doubling of the ban is Boudebza's lack of remorse. Why is he remorseful if he thinks he didn't do any thing wrong?

I would not blame any of you for thinking I am biased but if it comes down purely to rugby league experience I would believe Shenny before your owner. I wonder what his statement would have been if the roles had been reversed and a Cas player had caused a season ending injury to your captain.

Isn't that exactly what happened last season.

Hull KR have been dealt a significant blow with the loss of their influential captain Terry Campese for the rest of the season. The former Canberra Raiders stand-off went off with a knee injury against Castleford a fortnight ago, and further scans have revealed he suffered a ruptured anterior cruciate ligament and will undergo surgery.

Nothing in the tackle on Percival at all IMO. Just because a player was injured doesn't make tackles similar. JB's been hard done to yes, but it shouldn't mean we want every tackle that causes an injury to be punished.

No, I just find the fickleness of RL fans amusing and their ability to switch opinions based on club bias hilarious

Sums it up well. french john was 3rd man in on a stationary player, last night's was a 1 on 1 tackle

I'm very much travelling in the opposite direction!

I have every respect and sympathy for Shenton. I don't assume his infallibility, slavishly or otherwise, though - and nor should the disciplinary panel. They should judge on the evidence available, not on individual's opinions, not Shenton's or Powell's or Hudgell's or mine or yours.
The fact that some Cas fans are relying now on Shenton's good character (John Boudebza seems a nice guy from what I've seen, btw) and the possibility of other secret footage, suggests that even they think the evidence in the public domain is not that strong.

The remorse thing - I think can reasonably be assumed to be an expression of sympathy, rather than a mea culpa. The ban wasn't doubled for a lack of remorse. Remorse is RFL wording. I'm sorry Shenton is injured, it doesn't mean I'm responsible.

Curiously, a Cas player did put our captain out for the season last year. Nobody said much of anything that I recall, as it was not due to foul play.

I think you'll find Shenton was still moving when Boudebza went in.

YOU and me two

Before posting why not check the details of the case as posted on the RFL website and in particular the two statements below

The Panel state they have watched the video carefully and given careful consideration to what they have heard. They are satisfied dangerous contact was made, and do not accept the player lost his footing. It can be seen from the video the player makes a sweeping action with his left leg, and therefore has no control of his bodyweight.[u It is accepted the contact was not intentional however defenders have a duty of care when tackling opposing players.-[/u
Reasons for Decision
The Panel state they have found this decision very difficult, and have given it careful consideration. [uThe Panel give the player credit for his good character, previous disciplinary record, and remorse shown to the opposing player.[/u It must be noted that the injury caused was very serious and will result in a lengthy absence. The Panel state on this occasion they have decided to go outside of the grading and believe a 4 match suspension and £300 fine is appropriate.

Has the foul and most horrid Frenchman been executed yet?

Nope, he's been exiled on St Helena until Lord Powell of Castleford deems it acceptable that his penance has been served.

I was just going post asking why we were talking about the boudebza incident on this thread when I realised it was me who derailed it by posting about Percival on the wrong thread.

Can you move it MR....

You have misunderstood my point about other footage.
I am suggesting that the ban is unfair UNLESS the RFL have access to other footage, and I agree that the evidence in the public domain is nowhere near conclusive enough for the panel to find the player guilty.
Essentially, I'm saying the same as you!

I understood, but the way I wrote it was wrong. My apologies!

I agree, we agree on this point.

www.hullkr.co.uk/on-the-pitch/ne ... warrington Mantellato suffered a torn retina scoring late last week. Could've been blinded. Doesn't the tackler have a 'duty of care'?

www.hullkr.co.uk/on-the-pitch/ne ... warrington Mantellato suffered a torn retina scoring late last week. Could've been blinded. Doesn't the tackler have a 'duty of care'?

Making his conversion even more impressive.

He should be taken to agincourt and shot by English archers like his ancestors were

It's the sheer bloody mindedness that brings a titter. It is like reading the work of an idiot savant.
Maybe they broke up badly and they can't let it go?

Beside the JB ban it was a good result all round. We should have scored more points in the first half and then could possibly have won the game. Just as important is the fact we got a point, more than we did last year in our opener or against Cas at home and this was done in front of 11,000 fans.

I know I said that it was my final say on the matter but some thing else has come to my attention.

On Tuesday evening Castleford Tigers Supporters Club had one of their regular "meet the coaches events" At the event Powell was asked about the Boudebza tackle and said he has had a phone call from HKR (no name given but I would hazard a guess it was JP) expressing regret and apologising for the incident and wishing Michael Shenton a speedy recovery. Powell said that as far as he was concerned "that was the end of it as far as he was concerned". Which would suggest to me he was happy to accept the apology, so why did Hudgell feel the need to re-ignite the argument?

I know I said that it was my final say on the matter but some thing else has come to my attention.

On Tuesday evening Castleford Tigers Supporters Club had one of their regular "meet the coaches events" At the event Powell was asked about the Boudebza tackle and said he has had a phone call from HKR (no name given but I would hazard a guess it was JP) expressing regret and apologising for the incident and wishing Michael Shenton a speedy recovery. Powell said that as far as he was concerned "that was the end of it as far as he was concerned". Which would suggest to me he was happy to accept the apology, so why did Hudgell feel the need to re-ignite the argument?

Maybe because it's your coach who basically has caused most of this?
Hopefully Rovers fans really unite and the away game boycott is carried out on the mass scale it deserves.

I noticed you have chose not to respond to your statement. I wonder what his statement would have been if the roles had been reversed and a Cas player had caused a season ending injury to your captain.

It was pointed out to you that a Cas player did cause a season ending injury to our captain.

It is a fine but important distinction, but given that JB pleaded not guilty, I'd assume that it was intended as an expression of regret, but not an apology. His description of it as an apology, while not necessarily intentionally so, might itself be seen as inflammatory. Unless the Hull KR representative said 'we apologise' or similar.

The whole assumption of guilt thing apparent in the process has been a big part of the problem.

I agree that our issue really is with the RFL, rather than, or a least much more so than with Cas. They're entitled to their opinion, as we're entitled to ours. The RFL should listen to both, and where they differ look at the evidence, assuming innocence unless that evidence shows otherwise.