Pardon?

You have a brain work it out.

Or do you have too many plums in your mouth to understand.

Kudos to the few people on this thread that haven't gone on an anti-Bailey crusade.

If it wasn't Bailey on the floor, Lee Radford wouldn't have launched a volley of punches at him. Radford lost the plot and arguably lost his team the game because he saw a chance to get a few digs in at Bailey, and Bailey carried out his role in the team superbly once again. The fact that he gets under so many peoples skin on here is hilarious .

Now answer me this. If the incident was exactly the same in reverse - i.e. Ryan Bailey took a couple of knocks to the head as Radford tried to escape from a tackle, then launched 4 right-handers at Radford - I assume you'd all be coming out in support of Bailey and castigating Radford for his appalling act of trying to escape from a tackle and being repeatedly punched while on the floor?

Your post makes no sense I'm afraid.

No it does.

Ban the pair of them for at least two games.

I think there are some ridiculous comments on this thread on both sides. There's moral snobbery and there's ignorant finger pointing.

Should Radford have been sent off? Yes. Retaliating and throwing multiple punches.

Is he a thug? No, don't be ridiculous. He retaliated. He didn't instigate. Thugs start problems, not end them.

Was Bailey defenceless? Was he b*llocks. If you're going to throw multiple elbows at someone's head, you should expect something back. It's his own daft fault he didn't expect anything back. He's not untouchable.

Was Radford holding down? No, he was the dominant tackler. He is allowed to control the ruck and doesn't have to release straight away. It's not tick and pass.

If it was holding down, does that make it acceptable to elbow someone in the head multiple times? No. Holding down is a technical offence. To retaliate violently to that is thuggery. To react to violently to violence isn't.

Should Bailey have been punished? Of course. It should have been a Hull penalty for a start for the lashing out in the tackle. And Bailey's reaction after was ridiculous. He stood back up after calmly. He then waited to see if Radford was restrained before looking to retaliate. He attempted to get a shot on Radford, and he then attempted a butt on Sean Long. Attempting to butt someone (whether it connected or not) could have got him a red, never mind yellow. He started it. He got a smack round the chops. He came back for some more. He got sent away. He then came back AGAIN when the ref tries to resolve the situation and tells the Leeds players to restrain him. What punishment does he get? None. It stinks.

Was Lee Radford's retaliation worse than Bailey's elbows and later dummy-spat? Yes.

But why are people talking about Bailey and not Radford? Because Radford got punished (which some, including the pundits, thought was excessive) and Bailey got off with not even a warning. It stinks. It really stinks. The whole handling of the incident was a disgrace and it ruined the game.

It wasn't 5, and that's not an answer.

I was thinking that, he ignored several knock ons.

He also missed Yeaman's passing after he was tackled leading to Briscoes try, his ball carrying arm was on the deck with a Leeds player attached to him.

Yellow card to bailey

Definite Red card to radford. You just cannot do that. Stupid man. A punch is a severe breach of the rules. It's a red every single day of the week

Why wasn't Wellens sent off for punching McGoldrick TWICE in the face while he was on his back then?

McGoldrick actually got a cheeky blow in first. But i agree. It was worth at least a yellow to wellens