He said a "large amount". That's an indefinite amount so can mean anything he wants it to mean. It doesn't have to mean "majority".

I think Bridge had second thoughts on the way down and half pulled out of it imo. He should of seen red for intent and i would say one game would be sufficient for the careless way he went in on Jefferies. He didnt smack him in the head so a one game ban and a talking to from RFL and his coach will be enough imo.

I don't think bridge had second thoughts, he just missed. Luckily for his victim.

Warrington are "reverting" to the dirty, spoiling side they always used to be...

Really? The player was on the floor so it wasnt hard to hit his head if he wanted to imo.

Listen you clever git,I hope our club find them and string the little gets up by there nuts from the fllodlights for doing that disgusting act and if you read it right,it was mindless 10yr olds who did it and the parents want stringing up as well.Seeing as im a grown man who doesnt even sit where the incident took place i await your apology but seeing a you cant get your facts right and defend a thug like Bridge,i wont hold my breath.

show me the evidence of me 'defending' Bridge....and I do hope your club pulls its socks up.

Top of the league remark??????

Our club is going in the right direction now with a owner that actually cares....unlike horse-face hetherington and her cronies.

Agree with that.

You make your own luck apparently, but last nights game was a great example of a ref just leaning towards the favourites.

Can Bridge still be banned for a few games even though he wasn't put on report?

Yes he can be.
No he won't be.

Bridge only deserves a ban IMO because he wasn't sent off. If he had been I would be happy with no ban. As it is a 1 game ban would be appropriate I think.
Just because Moa's was accidental doesn't make it any better than the Bridge incident. The only issue I have with Bridge is the use of the elbow. But in the end he hit the Bradford player in the chest not the head. As accidental as Moa's was he shouldered a guy in the head. The Bradford player might have a bit of a sore chest this morning. Rinaldi was having headaches days after the game.

Both easy sendings off IMO. 1 ref bottled it, 1 didn't.

as i said at the time of the incedent he should have walked at least a yellow. my exact words were bye bye bridge if you care to know. but looking back the tackle was NOT complete and he probably was intended to disslodge the ball but still stupid actions. if he gets a ban it will be 1-2 or it will be NFA.

Why does it matter if he went for the head or the chest? He's already on the ground. We're not trying to decide if it's a high tackle or not. Watch it at normal speed and there is clear intent to attack a man prone on the ground. Cowardly, deliberate and malicious. Same as it would be if he'd gone for his ankle.

Take me blinkers off !
I'm not that sort of girl !
Ooh you are awful !

Quite right, however, apparently wire fans as a general rule of thumb have a 'reputation'



Now, either wire fans living up to this apparent reputation is a typical occurance, or it isn't. If it isn't 'typical' behaviour for wire fans, then it can hardly be called a reputation.

Now, as I've already said, how about people spend time discussing the incident as it happened instead of the utterly absurd "Your club's fan base has had more indiscretions reported in the newspapers than ours has" arguments that this thread has descended to - because honestly, it's just embarrassing and makes everyone using these arguments look like 6 year old children who are one more taunt away from saying "Yeah? Well my dad's bigger than your dad!"

This.