I do wish people would stop comparing the bridge one to the joel one, they are apples and. Oranges.

Joel hit myler in the face, bridge hit jeffries (after the ball) in the chest

Jeffries crim was kicking bridge in the pearls, myler's was scoring

Joel used the elbow, bridge used the forearm

The only thinkg in common is they were both enacted on prostrate players.

One was poor tackle technique, the other was a cowardly attck on a much smaller player cause he got angry at being scored against.

This is really being blown out of proportion and when wire fans defend it by quoting the terry newton thing, or the hock thing or the tomkins thing, it makes bridge's tackle a credible attack. It should be ignored, like it deserves.

JD. I'm not defending it. I think he deserved, and got, a ban. I just get really annoyed when supporters of other clubs, well one other club, conveniently forget their own player's indiscretions. Bridge isn't a thug and if he had aimed for the head or throat, he would not have missed from that range. Some people are talking out of their rear.

I said at the time, and have done evr since, I think that a yellow would have been the right cause. I don't think it was malicious (as certain team's fans have said) otherwise you know he'd have landed in better place than the ball. I think it was poor technique and bridge was trying to not show any weakness. It was stupid and should have resulted inn at worse, a 10 min sin binning. A ban, I think, is excessive and I think the sky team have a lot to answer for there.

But more to the point, it was no where near the levels that some poeple (trentthetroll etc) are talking about. I bet you there is a worse challenge this week that gets a more lenient punishment!

Very grown up answer that well done !!!!!!!

I think I know her, is her name Janice ?