I remember last season when my lad was at a warriors summer camp and was made to sit out for tackling "too hard". I thought that was as ludicrous as rugby could get but I was wrong!

Nowt wrong with Sam's tackle - we see it every week and every game from every team!

All I can imagine is that Cunningham has got some photo evidence stashed somewhere, I mean what else is he going to get away with, whilst being "protected" in this way?????

According to the press, he DOES have a fractured eye socket, see the quotes above. Those quotes come from the media who would have taken them from a Wakefield statement / press release.

So, carry on being obtuse about it if you like. You're only making yourselves look silly.

So despite a Wakefield press release saying there was no break and him being cleared to play a week in advance of his next game, then playing in it, you maintain that his eye socket was fractured.

I like you, you're funny.

So two weeks since the incident you still can't find a single official wakey statement saying it was fractured? Give up

Quote Fishsta="Fishsta"No, YOU try reading it. I'll highlight the part you need to understand. [iInjury Update Wakefield prop James Stosic has not [ubroken[/u his eye socket as was first feared following Friday’s win at St. Helens.[/i Whilst the medical world doesn't necessarily differentiate, the "generally accepted" terms used do. A break is understood to be a more severe fracture, usually at the point where a fracture is considered to be compounded and bones actually separate. Also note the dates. All the articles above I quoted were issued around the 24th/25th. The Wakefield article you quote was issued on the 20th. Between those dates, Stosic attended a specialist, and as John Kear relays to the media, "[iThese things happen. The specialist has said he won't damage it any further so he'll get his shirt and his boots on and get out there. They play with worse than that![/i" Wakefield issued that statement to the relief of their fans, and, to be fair to them, for the RFL's benefit in deciding to let Cunningham get away with another cowardly act of thuggish violence. If it HAD been BROKEN, that would probably have been the end of Stosic's season.'" www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... lekey=8083 accepted by whom, i'm a nurse who works in A&E a break is a fracture is a break,a compound fracture is where it breaks the skin, nowt to do with seperating from itself. different types of fractue, compound greenstick etc yes, but the theory you have put forward is bumkum, oh and the tackle on cunningham was naughty to say the least. i

Quote Fishsta="Fishsta"No, YOU try reading it. I'll highlight the part you need to understand. [iInjury Update Wakefield prop James Stosic has not [ubroken[/u his eye socket as was first feared following Friday’s win at St. Helens.[/i Whilst the medical world doesn't necessarily differentiate, the "generally accepted" terms used do. A break is understood to be a more severe fracture, usually at the point where a fracture is considered to be compounded and bones actually separate. Also note the dates. All the articles above I quoted were issued around the 24th/25th. The Wakefield article you quote was issued on the 20th. Between those dates, Stosic attended a specialist, and as John Kear relays to the media, "[iThese things happen. The specialist has said he won't damage it any further so he'll get his shirt and his boots on and get out there. They play with worse than that![/i" Wakefield issued that statement to the relief of their fans, and, to be fair to them, for the RFL's benefit in deciding to let Cunningham get away with another cowardly act of thuggish violence. If it HAD been BROKEN, that would probably have been the end of Stosic's season.'" www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... lekey=8083 accepted by whom, i'm a nurse who works in A&E a break is a fracture is a break,a compound fracture is where it breaks the skin, nowt to do with seperating from itself. different types of fractue, compound greenstick etc yes, but the theory you have put forward is bumkum, oh and the tackle on cunningham was naughty to say the least. i

oh, and if any one does fracture their zygomatic arch, it very rarely seperates from anything it just ussually show a crack or fisure on the x ray!


admit your wrong when your wrong!

Don't you sometimes wish the internet had never been born? Can't we please put this to bed now?

KC's views:

“I know a lot has been said of the incident and I did speak to Sam [Tomkins at half time and after the game. He is a young kid and plays the game tough and fair. He saw the opportunity to make the tackle and unfortunately it didn’t agree with my knee!"

[urlhttp://www.saintsrlfc.com/news/1980[/url

There seems to be a train of thought that KC is a dirty player - having played in the front row for as long as he has, he most certainly falls into the tough but fair category - alongside Sam in his opinion.

Always good to hear fellow pros with respect for each other in what is a brutal sport.

So even kfc doesn't have a problem with it. Will the saints fans drop it now?

And that is that.

If people want to carry on the discussion about the Cunningham jab, then they can do so on the Saints or Wakey forum.