Well I can, given that it did. I can see how you'd come to a different conclusion though, given I've said that knowledge of the injury would have resulted in an increased ban and that I agree with Chris Chester's comments about it being a farce. Sounds like I'm in denial.

Apologies cherry pie I didn't interpret your response properly and on reflection it us pretty clear

I would like to point out that both Fielden and Sculthorpe have also both played against Lockers as well and that the injury caused to Annakin was not directly related to where Lockers made contact and could also have occurred in a fair tackle.

He injured his knee whilst falling to the ground
He fell to the ground because he was unconscious
He was unconscious because he was hit by Locker's arm

So being knocked out by Lockers arm and being injured whilst falling to the ground was not directly related then....

I LOVE how this is still carrying on

Its got more legs than i thought it would

Has this finally made Wakefield relevant for the first time since 16/09/06?

Their fans haven't seen them beat enough opponents by 60 points to realise that this doesn't automatically entitle you to win the rematch.

He injured his knee attempting to sidestep Lockers' challenge, that's why he was going down slightly before the challenge and explains why Lockers made accidental contact with the neck/shoulder region.

MOT

you're funny.......when you're drunk on the interwebz..

So, a video showing SOL deliberately and illegally taking out an opponent proves your point!! Would you like to explain what point you were trying to prove?