Absolutely NO PROOF that the swollen eye was due to that tackle. $hit stirring of the highest order by $hithouse supporters.

Not at all. I was merely putting it out there and seeing what people made of it.

Match review panel only has access to video. They don't consider photography so this photo proves nothing

no you didn't you did it for the same reason that it is being done on the other forum

You can make assumptions about me all you like but I did it to see what you all made of it and because I hadn't seen it mentioned already.

Also interesting one of the reactions on your post on the warrington forum which you dont appear to have answered. Take a look at the position of Zaks head. To gouge a player you'd need to look where your hand is, he's looking in a completely different direction

I disagree. I could stand behind someone and quite easily locate his eye with my finger. You don't have to be looking at him; that's quite naive of you.

That's why you started the thread with "he could be looking at a long ban"

Looking at the video, I think he reaches around trying to hit and dislodge the ball but ends up finding the face of Hill.

Oh ok, I'm just naive. of course why didn't I see that tsk

you have stated a trial judged him and found him guilty tomorrow it will be all over "Nothing will come of this crime because Leeds and Hetherington run SL. If it had been Hock etc?'yes we have heard it all before

Why would his recent past be an issue? That he got done for homophobic abuse mean he's on eggshells for a potential gouge (or anything physical)? It's hardly like Hock and a history of contact with referees.

What??? I have said no such thing.

If he did it then he should be hammered. But a still photo isn't enough. The RFL should be looking at the video.

really ?we are used to this kind of thing we know how it goes.