Yeah. Would have made my night at least!

In all seriousness, he was holding Westwood down before Benny threw a few. He's not just going to react for no reason.. he's not called Joel.

How ignorant.


So holding down is a reason to start throwing punches?

It was only after someone restrained Westwood that Tomkins let go.

I never said the punches were deserved. I did say that he wouldn't have started throwing them had he not been held down though. No serious hits landed by Westwood so penalise the first offence. I don't see your problem.

Nevertheless, striking a player is a more serious offence than holding down and should have been punished. Your approach to refereeing would give the green light to players reacting with over the top violence safe in the knowledge that they won't be penalised and will, in fact, still receive the original penalty. Westwood should have gone for 10, even if the penalty had still gone to Warrington for holding down.

Think you'll find a word in the ear sufficed. There was nothing in it really was there. You're only up in arms cause it was on r'Sam.

A word in the ear for punching a player and a penalty for lying on? And with that you've blown your cover. Back under your bridge now, be a good lad.

One causes the other.. that's why the FIRST offence gets penalised. HTH.

Oh and one more thing...

Aw, have they let you stay up late cos it's not a school night? Did you have fun?

That all you've got

Just re-watched this on Sky! Wallop!! One minute sat there, next minute throws a huge punch at the lad two seats away!!

Bit pointless arguing with someone who's already admitted they're on a wind-up. Don't imagine I'd get much but childish baiting, eh.