Do you actually think it's an overreaction?
Do you actually think what Knowles did wasn't worthy of a ban?
Do you actually think that Saints should have been allowed to appeal the appeal? And before you say Leeds have done it, we haven't, we've appealed the frivolous judgements.

I think the general consensus was that you got remarkably lucky having only one ban given how much foul play, how many headshots and late hits went in against Salford, but this just extracts the urine.

I just hope he tries it again on Saturday and sees what happens.

Why is it mad? I could fall flat on my and be fine but my feet could be above my head. If you think it's mad, probably best to explain why, or, well, you look mad?

I think in terms of tackling technic there will be many more occasions where the hips are above the head.

If a players legs are on the ground you can't physically spear or tip tackle them.

Lifting the legs is where the issue comes I. As it maybe fine bit it can easily go wrong as other players in the tackle and the tackled player themselves cant then control the tackle with forces moving in many different directions.

I think the refs have a duty here as if motion is stopped, the call for held should be quicker.

There are many times were the motion is stopped and whilst the players continue to wrestle no held is called, resulting in very late offloading or tacklers continuing to wrestle or lift in an attempt to complete the tackle.

For me if forward motion is stopped then that should be held.

What's unbelievable? Seriously, what did I post there that triggered you?

I found the whole day disappointing. no atmosphere outside, no act on before the start.
I found it all subdued compared to every other time I've been