Personally i think Thaler got the call right on the tackle, the player was put in a dangerous position, it wasnt a spear tackle like some are saying, i agree with momentum and the way Seymour tackled him (not malicious) there was only going be one outcome, Crookes flattened, poor reaction from Crookes tho, didnt see many bradford players running to have ago at Seymour, that tells it from a players point of view. Penalty correct but Crookes could find himself in trouble.
Jeffries knew full well what he was doing, he heard the call like most did but knew Hull were in a great position with a quick play the ball, he was a tad unlucky as the replay shows briscoe wasnt tackled completely but in the eyes of the referee, which is the main thing, he was tackled and told the bradford player (s) to move but the didnt and so he had no choice but to sin bin him, unlucky but correct.
Great result for Hull but feel a little sorry for bradford as now gives the dobbins a chance to make the 8, now its between wakey nd dobbins imo.

Agree with most of that but he didn't land on his neck. As the screen caps clearly show he landed on his shoulder. The fact that he was that near to landing on his neck is what makes it a dangerous tackle. BTW it looks like Westerman realised what was happening and was trying to keep Crookes as upright as possible.

Sometimes there's a really fine line between a great tackle and a dangerous one. People who watch a lot of the NRL would probably have just seen that as a big hit as they tend not to get penalised in that competition.

Penalty was the right call IMO, and I wouldn't be surprised if Seymour picks up a ban. Maybe Crookes as well if he lashed out badly enough.

How on earth has this reached 10 pages? It was a dangerous tackle, nothing more, nothing less. The penalty was sufficient. Seymour hardly has a poor disciplinary record, or indeed previous similar offences. He won't get a ban, neither will Crookes.

thaler said he landed on his back, was a dangerous pick up! not the neck!

Foe somebody who last claimed not to be outraged, you don't half go on about stuff.
If you posted a picture of him landing on his neck, then you may have had summat to moan about, as it is you are just moaning for nothing. Get over it you sore loser.

So at least we have got something official from you Hull fans. He definitely landed on the flat of his elbow. As Crookes is supposedly coming your way the best outcome would be if they both got 10 matches.

Thinking back, whether deliberate or not, and none of us committed the tackle so we don't know, Bateman got 2 matches earlier in the season. Officially it was because he should have noticed the legs had gone over horizontal and he should have lowered the player to the ground.

Started of a as a good tackle, ended up dangerous. Not malicious, penalty sufficient IMO.

This is spot on.

Just a few years ago it would have been judged a cracking tackle.

Seen it again today, still don't see it being a dangerous tackle. He landed on his back after trying to break his fall with his elbow. By the letter of the law it is a penalty because of the position his legs get in to, which is just baffling IMO.
But yet Crookes stays on after headbutting and throwing three punches? Should have seen red.