I'll be surprised if we don't shift Grix to right second row and play Cooper loose.

Wilkin will line up on the left edge for them so you can have a mobile backrower in that position, start with Grix and give Blythe a stint there (who's playing really well at the minute).

All that said, with Tony, it wouldn't shock me to turn up and Bridge be in the backrow.

How on earth can you say it's unmerited? His actions were clearly full of intent as he was lashing out in retaliation to something Lauaki had done. He closed his fist and put a swinging arm into his face, the danger of which was proven by his breaking the nose of Waterhouse. It should have been a red card really.

You can claim Lauaki should have been banned for his leading with the forearm, but that isn't relevant to the Westwood decision.

good lord

Get Stuffed...

Quote the ditch="the ditch"Get Stuffed...'" Saddo is correct. That Lauaki one shouldn't even have been a penalty as shown by the disciplinary. Here's the proof. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3450 Westwood www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3451 Had it been worthy of a penalty it would have been mentioned. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3447 What I will say is that maybe leading with the forearm (to any part of the body) and the shoulder charge should be looked at by the RFL with a view to banning them from the game, but that is not today's ruling.

Quote the ditch="the ditch"Get Stuffed...'" Saddo is correct. That Lauaki one shouldn't even have been a penalty as shown by the disciplinary. Here's the proof. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3450 Westwood www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3451 Had it been worthy of a penalty it would have been mentioned. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3447 What I will say is that maybe leading with the forearm (to any part of the body) and the shoulder charge should be looked at by the RFL with a view to banning them from the game, but that is not today's ruling.

Based on the determination of Lauaki's finding, can somebody explain how Bridge received a ban?

over to rogues...

He doesn't play for Wigan?

Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"Saddo is correct. That Lauaki one shouldn't even have been a penalty as shown by the disciplinary. Here's the proof. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3450 Westwood www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3451 Had it been worthy of a penalty it would have been mentioned. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3447 What I will say is that maybe leading with the forearm (to any part of the body) and the shoulder charge should be looked at by the RFL with a view to banning them from the game, but that is not today's ruling.'" You said Bridge should have been banned against Huddersfield. Why?

Quote Rogues Gallery="Rogues Gallery"Saddo is correct. That Lauaki one shouldn't even have been a penalty as shown by the disciplinary. Here's the proof. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3450 Westwood www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3451 Had it been worthy of a penalty it would have been mentioned. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3447 What I will say is that maybe leading with the forearm (to any part of the body) and the shoulder charge should be looked at by the RFL with a view to banning them from the game, but that is not today's ruling.'" You said Bridge should have been banned against Huddersfield. Why?