Don't you mean Peacock rules? He got off with a terrible (and illegal) tackle on a Catalans player just before the international with France (since he was England captain). The player was stretchered off. Anyone else would have had to serve a ban for that. There was no injury at all to Stosic and he was due to play for Wakey at the weekend, which I assume he did since I haven't heard any hysteria from that direction lately.

It says he does have his hand between his legs but it is Lolesi (sp) who is at fault for lowering his head, so expect him to be punished for suggesting that a saints player had attempted an illegal tackle that had the potential to cause him injury.

Just another example of the inconsistancy in dishing out punishment for infringements.
It goes to prove what an absolute joke the disciplinary commitee are!!!

You shouldn't be worrying about other teams, Bronco Billy.

You've got enough problems with Quins and your fantasy team.

You're right about that DSWG.
Both seem to be going the same way. (Down the pan).

Yes it does now, but I could swear that when I first read it, it said "does not".

As it is now, it says "... player does have hands between legs and penalty sufficient". That doesn't read right.

If it said "does not have" then the "and" would make sense, but as it now says "does have", then logically the "and" should be a "but" should it not?

Methinks they've changed the wording after somebody pointed out to them that there were hands between legs.