More fabricated lies.
The game you refer to was on July 31st last year.
Cunningham played in the Challenge Cup semi final a week later.
rlhttps://www.saints.org.uk/saints.org.uk/home/viewpage.php?page_id

Blimey, that's a turn up for the books.

Saints fans normally just go for the outright abuse if you disagree with them. The new tactic seems to be outright lies!

Cunningham out for half a season seemed so plausible, though. How many GB appearances did he actually manage to scrape together, this "legend"?

You must have conspiracy theories at every corner. Saints no more get away with penalities than anyone else does. If you look hard enough (As it seems you do at Saints games) players will get away with High Tackles every game. Infact I'm pretty certain that if I studied the Wigan V Leeds game on Sunday I would see you get away with a number of them.

I have never known, anyone, ever try to place a bet on someone making a high tackle, nor seen odds for them but I will take your word for it.

As I've said before every team makes High tackles, Late shots, Doesn't mean they are thugs.

Try it and see. It's not just the high tackles, though, like I said, Graham's been to the Sculthorpe school of dropping a forearm to the head of a vulnerable player. For Wilkin it's the extreme high number of high tackles, week in, week out.

As for Cunningham, I've never known anyone, EVER, punch a player in the face and fracture their eye socket and not only not get carded for it, but get away with it at the disciplinary. Ablett got 3 matches for far less and Coley? 2 for FAR FAR FAR less. Fielden even got a match for TRYING to punch someone who'd just stood on his leg. But Cunningham? Oh, no, that's alright! Yet when Newton did something similar to Sean Long, it's the worst thing ever. One thing you can't accuse me of is double standards. If a Wigan player gets a ban and deserves it, I'll support it. If a Wigan player doesn't get a ban yet deserved one, I'll say so. Cunningham has deserved lots of bans, but I don't think they've ever given him one. He's a cheap shot thug, moreso than Newton ever was.



All you have to do is ask, bookies have all sorts of weird and wonderful bets you can place.



See above.

Sadly, quite a few by the seems of it. Until the invention of Internet forums, I never realised how bitter and twisted Rugby League fans could be to be honest. A certain member of this thread must have a dartboard at home with Cunningham's picture on it judging by his apparent obsession, quite a sad life to lead really.

We all take a disliking to certain opposition players, but the level some people go to is ridiculous.

That try of Cunninghams would NOT have been scored if the ball had been played correctly as the defence would have been set.

you know mate Ive watched that play of the ball that your preaching on about five times and quite frankly i dont see anything wrong with it ! the guy regains his feet places the ball on the ground heels it back with his foot ! So what the fek did you see ?????????????????????????????????????

As much as I'm loathed to get involved in ridiculous petty squabbles, i pretty much agree with you.

I see you're not averse to lies of your own thenhttps://wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2009/07/injury-update/rl

You must admit though, that was naughty from Tomkins.

Ooof!

Fishta, will that info loosen that stick that's up your ar5e?

The problem that day was the referee not shouting held, Tomkins had every right to make that tackle.

lol

Yes, he did.
However, the manner in which he attacked the side of the players knee was the concern. I'm sure if you aksed Sam about it, he'd admit it wasn't a very gracious bit of play and wasn't the best bit of judgement.
99% of the time rugby league's a man's game and (most of) the players follow a certain gentleman's conduct. The game's tough enough without finding easy ways to injure players (that incident could've caused worse injury than it did).
Imagine if a team (proabably leeds) started using a tactic were one tackler would hold the ball player stationary , then another would target the side of the knee like that. We'd see rules brought in like the ones to ban the chicken wing tackle.

I digress. Back to the thread.

The bottom line is - had KC done that to a held up Sam Tomkins and injured his knee - there would have been WWIII on here. It was cheap.

Given KC's got about 8 stone on Tomkins, he probably would have.