Burgess been found not guilty. No case to answer apparently. I assume that's coz he missed....

why does thread say 8-1?

What did you make of the ref Mick?....

Still should have been charged. Although looking like a clown missing with the girl punches was enough for him prob.

Successful goal kicks one assumes?

A fairly obvious reference to goals, since the tries were level.




I agree, he should have copped a ban for it really. Unless there was more to it than I saw, it looked like a clear case of joining a fight when it was nothing to do with him. As I said shortly after my "he's in bother" comment though, the fact he is due to play for England next week means he'll get off with it. The RFL (erm allegedly) have a history of not banning players for big games or internationals if they can avoid it.

Can they not ban them just for the super league games?

Not without changing the rules.

Dunno, maybe because the jury`s still out? To me the only essential difference between the game and quite a few recent efforts is that we got the points. Whilst we scored some good tries, defensively we were just as ineffective close to the line as we`ve been all year on occasions, particularly on the right hand side.

Maybe we got an extra slice of luck with Brough having an off day with his kicking, which definitely reduced the pressure. To me this is pretty much how we`ve played all season and IF I were of the Macca out persuasion I wouldn`t have seen anything to change my mind to be honest.

think thats the one eddie , tbf bulls have lost a couple on goal kicks . goes to show how tight the game really was on another given day danny b or tony m might of slotted them over.

credit to deacan who was getting a lot of calls to be dropped on this board just 7 days ago

An in the same vain, nothing to change your mind if your in the Macca in camp.

The good signs are there for all to see and on at least 5 other occasions we could have been walking away with the 2 points too.

Blimey you must be easily pleased.

Oh, I am!