Yep- if the panel say it was ok then that's fine by me.

Retract statements? This is a forum not a court!

Just because he's not been found guilty of the graded offence it doesn't mean the challenge wasn't a penalty.



Read more carefully. The general concensus wasn't saying it was a challenge worthy of a ban, it's saying it was a penalty because there was contact to the head and the decision by the RFL with regards the charge doesn't alter that fact.



Engage brain boys, if you can.

Told you so. Wasn't a penalty or a ban. Refs and RFL get one right.

Quite a number of posters have said it was a penalty (which was not given) and have said it was not malicious in their opinion. I haven't and don't recall many others saying he should be banned.



Or you could continue on the other thread and join the debate about our support as most opposing fans do, those of us on here have heard it all before, we actually go to the games so what's your point?



You need to move on, you have a big game at the weekend as do we, we won the 2 points anyway, next...

Simple fact is that you all got high and mighty because your coach spouted utter dross, then you all got excited when he was charged and seemed to be egged on by it. Now he's been completely cleared of ANY wrongdoing, you're scurrying trying to change, subtly, the meanings of what you all said.



There wasn't even a warning about tackling technique FFS.

On the contrary.

Turns out it wasn't, go figure.

Turns out it was illegal but not worthy of a ban. Otherwise he wouldn't have called to answer would he. We know the 'no case to answer' response after having several players called to Redhall just for an apology.

Come on guys, we can't expect hull fans to be too good at reading

Brilliant argument, shows you for the utter fool you are.

:1ub5pisn