Re: Kyle Wood : Sun Feb 25, 2018 4:36 pm  

Wakefield No 1 wrote:

I have read it was Bentham? From what I have seen from games in France, the vr struggles to get the pictures he wants from the French TV...

It was Misklauskas (sp?) according to TV

Re: Kyle Wood : Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:07 pm  

Prince Buster wrote:

I didn't see a thing and was extremely surprised when it was mentioned, especially with Finny being the alleged culprit.

However lets not forget the decision is down to the RFL disciplinary and facts and evidence can be completely different to our rational interpretation in their surreal world.

I've just watched the "incident" again (33rd - 34th minute of 2nd half) , Finn is about 20 yards away from it. Arona, Horo and Hampshire were involved in the tackle none of them were near Garcia's head with their hands. The more interesting thing is that after Catalan put the kick into the in goal, you can see Garcia start to rub his eye (well after the ruck is cleared).

Re: Kyle Wood : Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:47 pm  

trinfan71 wrote:

I've just watched the "incident" again (33rd - 34th minute of 2nd half) , Finn is about 20 yards away from it. Arona, Horo and Hampshire were involved in the tackle none of them were near Garcia's head with their hands. The more interesting thing is that after Catalan put the kick into the in goal, you can see Garcia start to rub his eye (well after the ruck is cleared).

Based on previous accusations of this nature, it doesn't appear you need conclusive video evidence to pick up a lengthy ban.... lets see what happens.

Re: Kyle Wood : Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:54 pm  

Cats13 wrote:

Based on previous accusations of this nature, it doesn't appear you need conclusive video evidence to pick up a lengthy ban.... lets see what happens.

Yes the Scott Moore one still remains a mystery, other than it was him involved so he must have done it.

Re: Kyle Wood : Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:10 pm  

See if you can spot what looks like a chicken wing tackle on Baldwinson (I may of spelt it wrong)

Re: Kyle Wood : Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:40 pm  

C-H-I-C-K-E-N....No mate...you spelled it right

Found it mate..... "of" should be "have"