: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:36 pm  

Beppe wrote:

Yeah tempting.

I'd go further and say that you couldn't rule out that the raising of the arm was instinct from Howell to avoid a clash of heads too.

As valid as any other theory as to what was going through Howell's mind at the time.

as to what was nearly going through tomkins mind Howells' elbow!
Terrible tackle and I reckon it was intended to do damage. Howell will be gone for a few weeks r'n'r and rightly so, but the afters are the worrying thing. The Knee and elbow delivered to dave on the ground need to be looked at. If not, then next time we get a player hit with a high shot, it's windmills all round and the game begins to become a farce. Ok.....more of a farce!

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:00 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

as to what was nearly going through tomkins mind Howells' elbow!
Terrible tackle and I reckon it was intended to do damage. Howell will be gone for a few weeks r'n'r and rightly so, but the afters are the worrying thing. The Knee and elbow delivered to dave on the ground need to be looked at. If not, then next time we get a player hit with a high shot, it's windmills all round and the game begins to become a farce. Ok.....more of a farce!

If you watch how tomkins messes about in the ruck throughout the game, then it's easy to believe why anyone would intend to go in for the damage shot. Reminds me a bit of how LMS used to play, getting way over excited .. exuberance of youth I guess. If he was a bigger fella he'd be giving away many more penalties.

Not convinced by the intent myself though. If it was intended I don't think tomkins would have been getting up on his feet afterwards.

I think you're right that Howell will be gone for a few weeks though ... I think the decision not to cite any wigan players is a clue to this outcome. Must be new rules about "justified" retaliation that I haven't seen.

Thought it was really unprofessional of ganson to comment on feeling sorry for tomkins senior too as it was his little brother .. irrelevant on the rugby pitch.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:58 pm  

Anything Mistress ganson does on Sky does not surprise me. He is fast becoming the RL version of Uriah rennie from Wendyball.

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:21 pm  

Windy one wrote:

Anything Mistress ganson does on Sky does not surprise me.

Mmm he's a bit of a numpty off the pitch too so I've heard

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:37 pm  

ABP' wrote:

Way to lose the argument and now pretending you were looking for ''bites''.

Not at all. I don't need to seek bites. Just find your stupidity, insignificance and bias amusing

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:14 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

:lol:

Not at all. I don't need to seek bites. Just find your stupidity, insignificance and bias amusing

Yes I was laughing at him too

: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:22 pm  

aspouea wrote:

Finally on the Tompkins try, the player is in the process of losing the ball. He has definitely lost control so there's only the question of downward pressure. Now as Stevo is always saying 'only a fingertip is sufficient' but I've always believed the 'fingertip' refers to a loose ball in the try area which a player dives on to score. I think that if you're losing the ball and it just happens to hit the ground before all contact is severed with your finger then surely that's a knock on. Certainly it would be counted this way if you still had your fingertips on the ball and it hit an opponent and went loose.

If it's the same there as here in the NRL. There's a separation rule and this try would stand in the NRL. Even though it looks like he lost it, if you can get your hand back on it, it'll count.