it was poor tackle technique

I dont remember him being suspended at all since joining us about 4 years ago

Think Carv's one match is reasonable and could have been more. Moz's 'challenge' was nothing at all. On watching it on Sky afterwards Stevos reaction to it was laughable. Clarke had his usual pop at us as well, can't help being a one eyed pie I suppose. Bring on Saturday for their annual HJ stuffing!!

Oh, we'll be all right if The Joker thinks it was Jackson's fault.

The only way he could have got his head out of the way was to shove it
under his arm. I suppose it's worth a go but can't see him winning this appeal.

I said before I think it was due to his tackling technique, but Morleys was a bad un for me. Went the other way for me. I thought Morley should get a ban and Carvell not.

Can't agree with you mate and thankfully neither did the panel last night.

I know to be honets not many agree with me anywhere, I was sober too so cant understand it

Just read the Panel decision regarding Carvell on the RFL site. "The committee are satisfied that in this instance they can go outside the sanction grading. Taking into account all the circumstances the committee feel the appropriate sanction is a 1 match suspension and a £300 fine" This was after Carvell accompanied by The Lord Tony Smith pleaded not guilty. At all stages players hand above the elbow. A player needs to drop his hand to go in deliberately. At point of contact fist is not clenched. Can see thumb and fingers extended. Can't be aggressive if player goes in with open hand. Nothing malicious. If opponent had stayed squat and low would not have happened. This type of action is protection for the ball carrier. This along with Jackson being a friend of Carvell. Think he might have a good chance of getting this over turned.

may go against him. They may impose a 2 match ban which the charge can carry or even a 3 if its deemed bad enough

Me too and no I'm not a Cas fan.

I thought there was nothing in the Carvell incident,tackler just unlucky to be where he was at the time.Don't think Carvell raised the elbow/forearm into the defender.

Whatever anyone's opinion is on the Morley incident (For what its worth I thought it looked bad) I cannot see how/why Carvell should get banned if Morley escapes with his as out of the two incidents I thought Morley had more of a case to answer.

AS I say thats just my neutral view of what I thought at the time just watching live on the TV.

Warrington looking good though.I'm really looking forward to the Wigan game as two teams on the rise.

I thought the dogged nature of your fightback against Cas was a game that you would have lost 8/9 times out of 10 before Tony Smith took over and had a full pre season with you

least theres 2 of us

Where as the actual panel "scrutinised DVD very carefully". Obviously not as carefully as all the neutral fans who recorded Castleford v Warrington just in-case there was anything they needed to play back 100 times in super-slow-mo.



End of story on the Morley incident. Roll on the Carvell appeal decision.

rlhttp://www.specsavers.co.uk/rl

anyone from the RFL ever attend this place...I doubt it

To all it may concern. Sorry if this has been done already (not checked), but here is the actual verdict from the panel:-

"Player accompanied by Coach, Tony Smith. Player has less than half a second pull out of tackle. Opponent collapsing at point of contact. Contact on chest. Player was committed. No raised arm. Opponent goes down and ducks into it. Player has both arms out. Unable to pull out of tackle. Original contact was with opponent’s chest. No reaction from touch judge who has clear view. Video ref and official indicate not sufficient to put on report although a penalty was awarded.

Decision Not guilty

Reasons for Decision The committee have scrutinised DVD very carefully. There was a collision and committee are not satisfied this could have been avoided. The committee are also not satisfied the initial contact was high but was towards the upper part of the body. The player’s arms were out but committee not satisfied this case is made out and find the player not guilty of a high tackle as charged."

Certainly warranted a penalty, but nothing more.