Sneyd is 200% to blame for the incident and deserves everything he gets the snide.

Possibly although ex-coach is usually an ex-player and might go down the sympathy route too.

They've found him guilty based on watching actual video footage, it's fact, it's there for them to see.

But then they based their sentencing on guessing that he didn't mean to do it.

So the verdict comes from actual physical evidence.
The sentence comes from opinion that the player didn't mean it. And he probably didn't mean it but surely coming to your ban length with more emphasis seemingly on guess work of the persons intent rather than more emphasis on the actual foul is completely backwards.

McDermott whines about a potential broken ankle, yet instead of being sent to hospital for X-Rays he's posing outside for photo's. He also wasn't scanned until 8pm the following night.

I personally don't read to much in to the squad announcement, but why would you put him in if he was injured?

Why are Hull fans so touchy about McDermott saying it "might be" a broken ankle. Just moments after the game, wasn't like he was saying 5/6 hours later or the next day.

If your problem is concern with how it makes Sneyd look media-wise then I suggest you watch his full interview because most of it is actual spent discussing the refs decision to bin McGuire.....not having a pop a Sneyd who I don't think he even mentions by name, and certainly isn't sat there demanding a large ban (or any) for him.

Might want to stop and consider what some of the other SL coaches might've said in a post match interview if Sneyd did it against them. What Wane would've said had one of his Wigan players been on the receiving end of that tackle?

Players aren't sent to hospital for X-rays immediately. They usually wait a day or 2 for the swelling to go down so as to get a much clearer picture on the X-Ray and a better diagnosis from the hospital. The standard procedure at Leeds is for players to go on a Monday morning (as Leeds usually play on a Friday night). With this being a Sunday game they've obviously waited as long as possible on Monday before sending him.

Sorry for letting the facts sh|t all over a rubbish story.

In real life it is up to the police to enforce the law, but judges/magistrates determine the severity of any offence. Perhaps we should change that too? Ex-players are just as likely to have sympathy with the victim as the perpetrator. The problem with this thread is too many people (& coaches) on both sides made immediate uninformed extreme reactions & find it hard to now back down. Fortunately, as in real life, the judiciary make a more reasoned judgement. Having been on the end of police brutality & incorrect refereeing decisions I am happy with the current arrangements.

'He kicked him because he was trying to break his ankle'. Quite an accusation, and one that's been rubbished by the authorities. He just needs to think before he speaks really.

That's not true.

Firstly, if you've got a potentially broken ankle you don't put ANY pressure on it at all, yet he wasn't stretchered out and was seen putting pressure on it straight after the game. You also go to hospital ASAP with a broken ankle, maybe not many other bones do you do that with but an ankle, you do. You're also advised to keep it elevated to help limit swelling, something else he didn't do.
Medical facts.

So stop spouting your BS.

Something like "Have you been watching our coaching sessions?"

I don't have problem with ex players in the panel (or coach) I just think there should be more than two. It should be a panel of maybe 5 or 6 so less power is in each member. And none have a link to the clubs involved. Even if this decision is exactly the right one. Having a controversial downgrading made by a panel of 2 (the judge is just there to make sure the process is followed) where one of the panel is a former Hull FC player does not look independent. It leaves the process open to accusations of bias. Rightly or wrongly.

Yup, I heard that on Boots N All. It is quite the accusation. He clearly thinks that it was intentional with a comment like that, and luckily the authorities disagree and have looked at it for what it was.