Weren't.

So he lifted them himself? Right, I see.

3 pages on a Good Tackle FFS

get over it, move on, no permanant injury, just the thought he got mashed by a scrum half, slammed on his back, thrown a few punches, then realised.... fook he may be my team-mate next season

He landed on his back. However, during the tackle Crookes was raised into a dangerous position and so the penalty was the correct call. It didn't warrant anything more than that.

Monster hit!! Great shot, we need more of these if we are to liven our game up a bit. I know the Bulls fans are smarting after a loss, but the tackle was nothing, and let's face it, they are cluching at straws a bit!

Head/Neck or even shoulders didn't hit the ground first so nothing illegal at all. Get Premier sports and watch some of the SnapShot hits from the NRL, plenty like that one!

Is that your theory on any tackle?

Next time there is any high/spear/dangerous tackle on a hull player I'd expect you all to move on quietly and not mention it as long as he's not injured ..........

Odd phrase to use.

Everyone knows you were the better team, we deserved to lose. No straws to be clutched at, just discussing a dirty tackle as we would if we had won, drawn or got a thrashing!

As he was driven to the ground, by a scrum half I may add, the momentum has caused his legs to elevate. Seymour hasn't physically done it himself, there's a subtle but important difference you don't seem to be able to grasp.

Seymour was guilty of a reckless tackle only because the players legs was high than the horizontal

receiving a butting might just get him off

Not by Seymour they wasn't, which is why there was nothing wrong with it.

You seem unable to grasp the fact if his legs are elevated in the tackle like that, it is a dangerous tackle. Where did the momentum come from?

The RFL Disciplinary panel will decide
End of.