: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:11 pm  

I think he looks like a cave man. I could imagine him with a club in one hand dragging a wooly mamouth behind him

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:17 pm  

leicester_rhino wrote:

I think he looks like a cave man. I could imagine him with a club in one hand dragging a wooly mamouth behind him

Both archaic so good call.

I know which is the bigger Neanderthal. And who grunts better than the other.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:28 pm  

tad rhino wrote: thats one thing union have that is better than us. a better and tougher disciplinary system. westwood would have got 12 weeks in t'other code http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXJyDHFKn0 This incident would probably contradict that point of view. Imagine if this was a league game, what would have happened to the culprits?

tad rhino wrote: thats one thing union have that is better than us. a better and tougher disciplinary system. westwood would have got 12 weeks in t'other code http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXJyDHFKn0 This incident would probably contradict that point of view. Imagine if this was a league game, what would have happened to the culprits?

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:31 pm  

BigRob wrote:

Got to agree with Cala, the fact he jumped into the tackle was the worst aspect for me. It's a tough game, there are going to be high tackles occasionally, most of them accidental, but jumping and swinging his arm like he did shows a malice and an intent to hurt the player. Thats not necessary.

If Westwood had intended to hurt Carlaw he would have hit him with a stiff arm (ie fist clenched) and not an open handed slap.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:46 pm  

tvoc wrote:

If Westwood had intended to hurt Carlaw he would have hit him with a stiff arm (ie fist clenched) and not an open handed slap.

The main impact was from his fore-arm. Correct ban IMO.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:57 pm  

thebloodbath wrote:

The main impact was from his fore-arm. Correct ban IMO.

My point is that Westwood's hand is open and if he intended to cause injury he'd be better off employing a 'stiff arm' next time.

I'm not discussing the ban except to ask, was Westwood's deserving 5 times the punishment given to Fakir in the same match?

A pity Carlaw will be missing for a few week's as he has damaged knee ligaments.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:01 pm  

tvoc wrote:

My point is that Westwood's hand is open and if he intended to cause injury he'd be better off employing a 'stiff arm' next time.

The big problem there is your showing Westwood too much respect in the IQ levels. It was just another un-needed, sloppy, effort. I refer back to my original post on this topic:

thebloodbath wrote:

I think the ban is a sensible length. Carlaw was carried off, not to return, so Catalans lost his input in the game and were also forced into an early sub. Then look at the offendender??! Old Wild Wild Westwood. How many times has he shown himself to be no more than a moron on the pitch? Too many. We've seen numerous high tackles, poor technical tackle ability (with players ending up on their head), dropping with knees in the tackle, also going in with the forearm raised. The bloke is a liability. Safer in the stand (maybe not for the fans though ). As for the tackle, yes it was high and caught him, no doubt. But I think the length of the ban is more to do with the offenders history, than the RFL clamping down on high tackles. In this case they've got it spot on IMO, and that's all you can ask for. If he does it again slap him with an even longer ban until this thug learns. Or failing that, just slap him.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:36 pm  

thebloodbath wrote:

The big problem there is your showing Westwood too much respect in the IQ levels. It was just another un-needed, sloppy, effort. I refer back to my original post on this topic:

I think the general reaction to the tackle on here is over the top and that has been matched by the disciplinary actions.

How they can justify the 5 - 1 weighting between Westwood - Fakir is somewhat baffling.

It's a pity Carlow has injured knee ligaments. I suspect he'd have had every chance of playing at the weekend otherwise.

I only hope when a Leeds player digresses Fakir's punishment is comparable and not Westwoods.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 pm  

tvoc wrote:

I think the general reaction to the tackle on here is over the top and that has been matched by the disciplinary actions.

How they can justify the 5 - 1 weighting between Westwood - Fakir is somewhat baffling.

It's a pity Carlow has injured knee ligaments. I suspect he'd have had every chance of playing at the weekend otherwise.

I only hope when a Leeds player digresses Fakir's punishment is comparable and not Westwoods.

The punishment is justified when the offenders track record is looked at. And that has to be the case, for logic and continuity. Simple. I mean if Joe Bloggs, 19, played 12 SL games played did the same, he wouldn't have been given 5 matches. Rightly so. Maybe a small ban and (or) a warning letter. But I'm sick of these needless acts of thugery by Wild Wild Westwood. The ban fits his long list of crimes. What else could the RFL do? How many warning letter and smaller bans can they give this jerk-off? If he does a similar offence, up the ban again, until it sinks into that very empty head of his.

: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:05 pm  

I'm just thankful that Westwood's wife didn't turn up on this forum to defend him like she did (allegedly) on the Wire forum http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=395769&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135

I'm just thankful that Westwood's wife didn't turn up on this forum to defend him like she did (allegedly) on the Wire forum http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?t=395769&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135