You are Scott Palfreyman and I claim my £5

This.

Its an action that is designed (and taught by other players and coaches) to cause pain to the other player. That it went further and caused injury isn't surprising, in exactly the same way as Chase's cannonball on Ferres did. That is not mitigation for Sneyd, it's an aggravation. He knows it has the potential to cause injury and yet did it anyway.

10 match ban minimum for me. I'm sick of seeing these sh|thouse type of tackles and tactics that are actively being taught to players in our game. It's not tough. It's cowardly. And they aren't the values our sport was built on and says it continues to want in our game.

It's about time these tackles and tactics were stamped out of the game with very long bans for the players that commit them. Plus, it's time to make the coaches and clubs responsible for their actions, because these things are being practiced in training. So every time an incident happens the coach and club be fined. On an increasing scale for the first few then we start in to bans for the coaches and punishments for the club until they take responsibility and stop these sh|thouse, pathetic, cowardly acts from happening.

Apart from at fault for two of the tries you mean?

....anything to do with the fact he was making a rare appearance in what many - including me - have long said is his [ibest[/i poistion? (at least on attack)

Did it stop his ankle been broken? That wasn't what I said at all though. I said it from the refs perspective. The ref saw the offence and penalised it, he also saw McGuire lift his right foot in the air and kick it down on Sneyd. That is an offence in it's self no matter who you support. However, the fact that McGuire sustained the injury from the offence, Hicks should have used his head better.

Me personally, I am not a believer that retaliation should be punished the same as original offences. However, those are the rules.

If Anthony England can cop a an 8 match ban for gobbing at Hobbit boy, then Sneyd should be facing at the very least a similar term spent in the stands.

Both actions were deliberate and both have absolutely no place in our game, although England left Brough with a slimy face while Sneyd left McGuire needing hospital treatment

that you don't see the inherent confusion and contradiction in what you are saying isn't surprising.

There is no confusion. The fact you can't see that is not surprising.

The rules are the rules from a refs perspective, whether we like it or not. He played to the rules.

The Sneyd incident happened right in front of where I was standing in the SS. I don't know what Sneyd was thinking when he twisted the ankle, but you could see clearly he was. But as others have said, McGuire was trying to get up for a quick PTB, I guess you can't do that if you are unable to put your feet on the floor as someone is yanking your ankles.

I know Sneyd is a kicker and not necessarily the type of player who tackles a shed load and therefore will automatically do what the big tank players will do of holding down - I imagine (rightly or wrongly) that Sneyd isn't the kind of player to often find himself in situations like that to try and quickly react and slow it down in the 'most safe way for the other player'.

Again, as others have pointed out, McGuire presumably wasn't in quite so much pain when he tried to kick whoever it was in the head, because he was being stopped from doing a quick PTB. These two things would suggest it happened during the twist.

However in seeing it all happen in front of me, I was as disgusted with McGuire's actions as Sneyd's - both were pretty purile, though McGuire's was more obviously deliberate (though 'understandable' arguably, with what was going on).

Regarding the game more generally, I was really impressed with Keinhorst again - he has played sporadically but you don't hear any complaints and then the recent games he has played even with my relatively novice eyes, I can see that he does a lot of quiet work that isn't often showy but contributes a lot. I was happy to see he was playing yesterday and that he had an impact again.

In watching them warm up before (and with comments of people on here in mind) I was watching Walters. He is definitely stockier and slower - he was ambling during the warm up. To me, it seems he has bulked up to the sort of size that does him a disservice twice - he is now no longer slim and nippy like he was before, but neither is he a lumbering giant that can carry cars. He is sort of inbetween; no longer quick and agile but also not a beast. I understand he has more strength than last year, but nowhere near enough to make up for what he has lost in gaining the bulk.

Finally, the interchanges. Two of those did my tree in - what was the point in Sinners for Aiton, followed by Aiton for Sutters within 2 minutes. Why didn't he just switch Sinners for Sutters and save a sub..? There was another one later that was similar, with Ward or Singleton I think. Can anyone who knows more than me explain why those type of substitutions would make sense to make?

To me they seem illogical as he essentially used 4 substitutions to do what could have been done using just 2. Were these due to injuries - I see now that people have highlighted that we picked a few up? Thanks.

No. What I meant was clear. I meant that my opinion was that Ablett was our best player. That you think he was at fault for two tries doesn't change my opinion.

My opinion was borne out of watching the game and reinforced by the stats which show he made 38 tackles, 11 carries for an eye popping 10.27 average, three clean breaks and 2 offloads.

I never claimed he was perfect.

I suggest you re-watch the video. He shows McGuire the card after a few minutes of treatment and whilst he is being carried from the field. Unless he concluded McGuire and the Leeds medical staff were faking it to avoid a sin binning it must have been obvious to him that McGuire was injured.

clumsy at best, goes on all the time,a ban yes it should be, but my problem is the next time nowt will happen,he will properly play fri

That first sentence is brilliant as an attempted insult.

If rules are rules perhaps you could point out the rule which backs up your statement that it was ok because McGuire broke his ankle where as it wouldn't have been had he not?

No he won't

So a player who is at fault for two try's conceding and failed to put a ball down over the line against a much smaller opponent was our best player. That is on a par with Sky giving Roberts Man of the Match on Thursday 2.0947265625:10