: Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:46 pm  

Anybody think that Clubb would have made the 17 today if not suspended? I suppose he might have taken Esders bench spot.

: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:56 pm  

Legless wrote: Just as slamming people's heads into the ground, or spearing a player into the ground head first has always warranted a punishment. ... unless it's a St Helens player doing the spearing, in which case it's the fault of the opponent for putting his head in the wrong position http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1368

Legless wrote: Just as slamming people's heads into the ground, or spearing a player into the ground head first has always warranted a punishment. ... unless it's a St Helens player doing the spearing, in which case it's the fault of the opponent for putting his head in the wrong position http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... hp?id=1368

: Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:25 pm  

We are surprised

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:07 am  

What a Surprise, how Saints can never be sinners! - he should have been given a yellow card and sent to the sin bin at the time,

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:15 am  

I like how they come up with this:

player does have hands between legs

Err… he (Puletua) clearly does. I noticed it at the time and I went back to check my eyes weren't deceiving me. BBC have the game on the iPlayer. They have a replay 51 mins in to the coverage which shows it quite clearly.

How anyone can watch that and say Puletua didn't have hands between the legs is quite frankly beyond me.

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:53 pm  

PTB wrote:

I like how they come up with this:



Err… he (Puletua) clearly does. I noticed it at the time and I went back to check my eyes weren't deceiving me. BBC have the game on the iPlayer. They have a replay 51 mins in to the coverage which shows it quite clearly.

How anyone can watch that and say Puletua didn't have hands between the legs is quite frankly beyond me.

It says he does have his hand between his legs but it is Lolesi (sp) who is at fault for lowering his head, so expect him to be punished for suggesting that a saints player had attempted an illegal tackle that had the potential to cause him injury.

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:57 pm  

Just another example of the inconsistancy in dishing out punishment for infringements.
It goes to prove what an absolute joke the disciplinary commitee are!!!

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:14 pm  

You shouldn't be worrying about other teams, Bronco Billy.

You've got enough problems with Quins and your fantasy team.

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:54 pm  

You're right about that DSWG.
Both seem to be going the same way. (Down the pan).

: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:47 pm  

Rog390 wrote:

It says he does have his hand between his legs ...

Yes it does now, but I could swear that when I first read it, it said "does not".

As it is now, it says "... player does have hands between legs and penalty sufficient". That doesn't read right.

If it said "does not have" then the "and" would make sense, but as it now says "does have", then logically the "and" should be a "but" should it not?

Methinks they've changed the wording after somebody pointed out to them that there were hands between legs.