+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.

If there's no intent I do not see the purpose of him raising his arm as high as his own head and then bringing it down in a smashing action elbow first into a player lying prone on the ground.

I don't agree to disagree. I'm erring on the side of thinking everyone should agree with me.

The intent of him raising his arm? To gather force/momentum to dislodge the ball. The first point of contact is clearly with the ball/ball carrying arm, he clearly hits with that first then his momentum results in the rest of his arm/elbow coming down. But still, the point stands, if Bridge had intent (intent of what? I assume you mean intent on injuring him) why would he drop his arm onto the ball carrying arm, and not Jeffries' face/neck? The only point when Bridge's elbow goes near his face/chest is after the collision with the ball carrying arm, which makes that accidental IMO. He leads with his arm straight and makes the connection with his arm.

If you want everyone to agree with you, go 'ed, but I won't.

Jeffries has the ball carrying arm to one side. Bridge makes contact with the upper part of the chest, just below the neck.



The ball was at Jeffries side for the entire duration of the collision. You can see it on this near side, by Bridge's hand, very far away from the point of impact at Bridge's elbow. The elbow led made first contact, not the hand.



As you wish.

Just been watching it again on YouTube and the 'ball' argument is nonsense.

He raises his elbow high and slams it into the chest. It then slides into the throat. The elbow is always intended to be the main point of impact. Yes, his hand/wrist glance the ball but only because they happen to be at the end of his arm. The ball, incidentally, is being held to the side of the body, not on the chest.

It's a deliberate attack to hurt the man, simple. He'd won a great tackle and Jeffries was prone on the floor. I've no problem with players going out to 'smash' one another but this was pretty cheap and he'd be better holding hands up and saying, "sorry, I got a bit carried away there".

Red card? Not sure. 10 minutes certainly. The fact there was no punishment apart from the penalty at the time might go against him.

Agreed. I said at the time it should be a yellow at minimum, with red card open for a (very valid) debate. I won't be complaining if he cops a suspension this week, and if he doesn't get one (or gets found guilty but given a fine only), I won't be outraged but will be very much surprised.

Agreed - for me, if Moa deserved to walk then so did Chris Bridge; he stood over a prone, helpless player, squared up and dropped on to him with his elbow in his neck/chin area - a rush of blood to the head maybe, but a house tactic nonetheless, designed to harm.

I maintain however that Jeffries puts himself at risk by making himself helpless - he did the same thing later during the nutmeg incident; it's a bit silly.