I'm not for a second saying everything would have been different if Sinfield was on......but I don't think he would have gone for touch from the 20m restart whilst we were under so much pressure and had had such little ball in hand which imo was a massive turning point in the game,

Spot on. And he's got there by being played achieving match fitness after an injured pre-season and he's now getting into his groove.

A few weeks ago there were many calls for him to be dropped. Astounding really when he has proven what he can contribute when able.

May have got this wrong, but I read that as McGuire trying to do something Sinfield-esque away from his usual game. He did on other side of coin put some clever kicks in as well.

Think Leeds have fired a few warning shots for all oppoisition to take note of.

When game was locked at 20 all, few minutes left. how many teams would have puffed their cheeks and thought 'we'll settle for a point now'? Probably most. Not this Leeds team. They slung the ball, passed and offloaded in risky places in an attempt to win the game. which nearly came off.

Push Leeds into a corner in tight games and they will roll the dice.

that optional kick was an unnecessary gamble on every level

But I don't think Sinfield would do something like that during that situation considering how the second half was panning out.

Like I said I'm not suggesting that we would have won had Sinfield been on it was just my opinion on that particular play.

Match Report: Huddersfield 24 Leeds 24 www.nothingbutleague.com/super-l ... -rhinos-2/

Match Report: Huddersfield 24 Leeds 24 www.nothingbutleague.com/super-l ... -rhinos-2/

I was actually surprised that they went for the 2 points when awarded a penalty a yard from the Hudds tryline, ok it got them a point but I thought that was the time to go for the win.

when does Aiton serve his ban for the drugs scandel in Australia? the others have been banned but not him, is it an ongoing case or been swept under the carpet

It was just a misunderstanding, Hetherington sorted it out.

The Cronulla players were invited to plead guilty and take what amounted to a three game ban, despite the fact the ASADA had no evidence that any of them had ever used a banned substance, the scientist at the centre of the case refusing to testify to the ASADA and none of them had ever failed a drugs test. The alternative was that ASADA threatened them with possible two-year bans if they didn't plead guilty.

Unlike AFL teams involved with the same individual, Cronulla hung the players out to dry. I suspect Leeds (and Catalan Dragons, not forgetting Ben Pomeroy was also named) have taken solid legal advice and invited them to make a case that would stand up to legal scrutiny either here or in the courts in Australia. Truth is, ASADA don't have one. It's all built on speculation, conjecture and a piece of tabloid journalism.

IIRC the likes of Pomeroy and Aiton were never contacted by ASADA at all and so never offered the opportunity to plead guilty and accept a 3 month ban served in the off-season.

If ASADA want to pursue Pomeroy/Aiton etc now then they'd have to offer them the same opportunity as those in Australia. And as mentioned, they appear to have little in terms of evidence anyway.

That optional restart would have almost certainly won us the game had it come off. We should never stop trying those

The Huby/Cuthbertson 'obstruction' is simple for me. Huby stops in the line after the ball has gone west and honestly does step into Cuthbertson, but by the time the play comes back round Huby is walking back while for some reason Cuthbertson is pretending he's made of velcro and looks to want to keep walking into Huby in a terrible attempt to look as though he's been held back, he had plenty of opportunity to step right and go for Wardle, instead he decided to be lazy.