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.

+1

Penalty, correct decision. Maybe a letter about his technique. No more.

It makes me laugh how we're now included in this 'favourable treatment' group. See: better teams provoke jealousy.

FWIW I thought straight red.

For?

For his deliberate and malicious attack against a man prone on the floor.

No problem with him not being sent, but if he gets nothing more than a new penpal as you suggest I'll be fuming.

Is there? If he wanted to 'attack' Jeffries, he could have just dropped a right flush on his chin, instead he dropped his arm onto the ball/body. I'm not really sure what they can ban him for? Excessive force to a player's chest? Trying to dislodge the ball too heavily? Picking on somebody too small? Being a hot head with a reputation, that apparently does this every week (according to fans that watch him twice annually)?

Is there what?



And if he wanted to hold him down and slow up the Bradford attack he could have laid across the top of the player. You're right though, he could have attacked in many other ways too. But he didn't, he did it in the way that he did it. What he did was raise his forearm and smash it elbow first onto a man lying on his back and unable to defend himself. The intent is clear and obvious. What he ultimately connected with is an irrelevance.

I have no opinion on whether he's a dirty player or not. I didn't see the Hudds game and don't give a toss about him one way or the other. His intent in that tackle is clear and obvious to the overwhelming majority of people.

All I can say is, if Bridge is telling the truth when he says there was no intent - then he used an appalling/reckless technique. When it comes to intent, the point of impact is irrelevant (players have been banned before now for throwing a high shot with intent that didn't even connect) - before he even made contact I was cringing at the way he went down to 'complete the tackle' because it looked for all the world like he was going to smash Jeffries in the face with his forearm to me.

Is there clear intent? We'll have to agree to disagree, as I don't think there is. Bridge hits the ball first before momentum takes his arm higher up, if he wanted to hurt Jeffries, he could have dropped an arm straight to his face or neck. Bridge has also denied the intent after it and provided fairly acceptable reasoning.

If the panel were to try and prove it, what exactly could they say? You intended to hurt Jeffries by dropping your forearm onto the ball but you could have hit his head? Well they may as well say that about every tackle, ifs, buts and could haves. For me, Bridge isn't guilty of anything other than being aggressive and slightly reckless, but I don't think that equates to intent and nor do I think it's against the rules. If Jeffries had dropped the ball and we gained it, I'd have given him a pat on the back and said well done for getting us the ball back.