I think it depends if they see it as Greenwood's momentum causing the roll. I wouldn't like to say. In Sneyd's case it definitely wasn't momentum.

Well no, Brown was twisting because there was a slim chance of an offload. The initial contact from Greenwood was the back of Brown shirt, with momentum Browns ankles were around Greenwoods throat, it was after this when Greenwood still had hold of Browns trailing ankle, delayed a quicker PTB.
The suggestion from the Hull poster that Brown had to kick out in the tackle, I repeat again ………….GARBAGE.

You lot are ridiculous. Greenwood doesn't twist the ankle, once he's finished the roll, the ankle is still pointing in the direction it should and hasn't rotated 360 degrees. No case to answer here at all.

If Greenwood does get a referral for that, Saints should just show a highlights clip of Willie Isa's involvement in the game. I don't think he did a thing yesterday that was within the rules.

It was inevitable, like night follows day.

What's funny is there is actually nothing in this "incident", just a Hull fan seeing what he wants to see.

And those who think Greenwood should get a ten match ban yet think Sneyd was harshly treated, just get out. Go bang your heads against a wall ya feckin' eejits.

Two very different incidents IMO.

Greenwood is already falling to his left as he makes the tackle. The momentum of that leads him to roll over once as he hits the floor. He then rolls a second time to get himself in a better position to get up and get to marker. At no point does he manipulate or in any way alter the direction of Brown's foot/ankle.

Sneyd landed on his front, then took it upon himself to grab McGuire and roll in order to try and slow down the play the ball.

At the very, very worst it's a warning about future technique but I don't think it deserved even that.

Greenwood charged with grade C.

Even tough I started this, I think that it a bit harsh, I would expect him to get a one match ban, there was certainly something in the tackle, just some fans can't see it against their own players, but were quick to jump onto Sneyd last week.

Just seen this, I think you find that I thought Sneyd was guilty and deserved a ban (I said 3 matches compared to previous incidents), what I didn't agree with was the 8-10 matches that people were talking about, this is a similar tackle although not as bad and deserves as least looking at, it seems the people that matter agree with me.

I'm no Leeds or Saints fan but:

Sneyd should've got longer. There was intent to commit the tackle even IF he'd didn't intend to injure - the recklessness shoudlve warranted at least 4 games more than he got.

Greenwood, at best, should've got a slap on the wrist. There was nothing in it whatsoever.

I think it's common knowledge on here that the disciplinary panel (and the RFL as a whole) are a bunch of moronic c**ks. There should be a complete restructure of the panel, but best to be done at the end of the season.

All in a complete, neutral viewpoint of course.

I wouldn't have said that was anything like the same severity or level of potential for injury that the Sneyd challenge had to it. For them to be graded the same is daft IMO. If Greenwood gets the same ban that Sneyd got then the game really has gone mad.

They've painted themselves in to a corner by not dealing with a bad incident appropriately. Now they can't plausibly punish Greenwood even if they find him guilty (not that I think they should find him guilty necessarily) because it wasn't even in the same postcode as Sneyd's

I pretty much agree, he should get a maximum of one match, but I'd be tempted to fine and warn him, but like last week with fans going over the top about Sneyd, the bias is showing in some fans to say he did nothing wrong, it could have been dangerous and Brown clearly thought they was something wrong with it.