: Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:07 pm  

rhinoms wrote:

It wasn't but the fact greenshiled's didn't get a ban helped!!

if anythign he could easily have copped a 1 match, that was a bad one i felt, even though he was stepped it was intentionaly high i thought...anyways, all over now

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:12 pm  

No problem with the decision really, but the RFL once again make the game look f*cking stupid with their inconsistency. Useless!

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:41 pm  

It's the right decision, it was just a clumsy tackle, but the RFL are so inconsistant when dishing out bans. I've seen far worse tackles not even referred.

: Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:46 am  

Blobbynator wrote:

No problem with the decision really, but the RFL once again make the game look f*cking stupid with their inconsistency. Useless!

Is SPOT ON sir.

RFL " Your banned son "

Player " I disagree with you RFL "

RFL "Valid argument son, your free to go and play next week, just give us a fiver for the swear tin "

: Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:13 am  

Supreme Sydney2002 wrote:

Is SPOT ON sir.

RFL " Your banned son "

Player " I disagree with you RFL "

RFL "Valid argument son, your free to go and play next week, just give us a fiver for the swear tin "