Just watched to game against Hull . See Mr Bailey up to his old tricks again. He was clearly shown to be elbowing Radford. When Radford retaliated he was the one who got sent off.
Has Mr Cummings aka hemmings sent out a dictate that none of his favorite team should be sent off this season?
case in point
Ablett on Sam tomkins? any other club player sent off,
Senior on joel tomkins ? any other club player sent off,
Bailey on Leon Price any other club player sent off,

bit of a one rule for Leeds and another for others.
While I'm on one when will they learn to stop the back chat to the ref. it seemed every decision by the ref leed snow seem to challenge ?????? but still no censure
I rest my case

not exactly the same point but also Sinfield argueing with the ref.

Another one slightly off, referee went to give briscoe try, whistle already in mouth. Next minute he sees a Leeds player doing a square so changes his mind and goes to the videoo ref. So they are also making the decisions over tries aswell

Everyone loves a conspiracy theory, though the truth im sure is much less interesting. The ref had doubts over the try and therefore used the protests as an indicator to make him go to the video to make sure.

And in ALL sports since when has there been widespread consistency from referees, much refereeing in sport is how the individual out there sees it. And Bailey's elbows werent in my opinion red card worthy, possibly a sin bin.

As for ablett on sam - Anyone can get a decision wrong.

That really wound me up. He nearly had his arm out in front of him already but then listened to the players.

What's the big problem about going to the video ref even if prompted by players? If the facility is there and there is doubt, better to be safe than potentially cost a team a top 4 spot.

Wear cherry and white.

neither Radford nor Bailey should have been sent off. Both for me should sit out the first round of the play offs. Bailey suckered in Radford and basically won the game for Leeds by the retaliation tactic from the Hull captain.

Bailey runs off and hides and then once he has back up tries to headbut Long.


In isolation I do not think either incident is worth a ban, but combined ie use of the elbow then running in with the head he must pick up a game.

Bailey is a tart. Radford shouldn't get a ban. The red card was more than enough punishment for throwing a couple of digs. Sin bin would have been suficient

The Bailey incident was clear provocation and, unfortunately but understandably, Radford fell for it - hook, line and sinker. I mean, what the hell was the guy supposed to do. Say something like, "I'm terribly sorry, old chap. Would you mind not hitting my face with your elbow?"

Saying that, I'm surprised with the consistency of refereeing at present that he didn't receive a sin bin before the punches were thrown for having his head inconveniently in the way of Bailey's elbow.

The problem with that decision was that it made Leeds bullet proof against any bad decisions and gave the likes of Sinfield and Delaney license to run their jaws off throughout the game.

Agree with Jonh. If there is any consistency at RFL Disciplinary, Bailey should get at least a one match ban. As I said on another thread, I find it amazing he wasn't cited to appear before the Disciplinary Committee for the elbow in Riley's head/face in the last play of the Cup Final.

But, of course, he's a Leeds player! The way they show dissent and get away with it time after time is also appalling.

I'm just hoping next Sunday that we don't get sucked into falling for any similar tricks, just concentrate on the game itself and dish out any retribution needed on the scoreboard.

Must admit that I have mixed feelings about playing Leeds, on one hand it's a good match to get ourselves in the right frame of mind needed for the play-offs. But it's gonna be a tough game as even though Leeds are hit by injuries at the end of the day they are champions and the pride of being current champions will ensure they won't go down without a fight.

It's about time the authorities did something about Bailey, it really narks me when he does some cheap shot on an opponent then once trouble erupts he quickly makes himself scarce attempting to look like the innocent party ... trouble is frequently Bailey instigates the trouble. Sadly, Radford fell for it yesterday and ended up getting red carded. Did notice that Bailey stayed well away from Radford when he offered to escort him off field to continue their "disagreement".

Also, it annoys me when Leeds players mouth off to the referee every time a decision goes against them. If the refs had a bit more bottle and marched them back for dissent then maybe the message would get through to their players to keep their traps shut. It's rugby not soccer, we don't want to go down the road of seeing players surrounding a ref every time they disagree with their decision.

Come off it pal,most/all teams have players that want to referee the game and contest refs decissions. Your own team are no angels when it comes to that.

I just think it's yet more dire refereeing. We saw a display of similar ineptitude on Friday night, when Childs turned up clearly intending to be the centre of everything, the result being that he slowed the game right down both for Wigan and Bradford. Neither side were really able to get going, because the referee was constantly blowing up.

Sorry to say it, but these guys really are made in Cummings's own image. He was the ultimate pedant as a referee, seeming to blow for every single thing he could find, no matter how innocuous.

Childs, Bentham and Silverwood are exactly the same. It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of them that you could probably penalise each scrum and play-the-ball in a match if you are going to be so picky - and the really galling thing is that there never seems to be any comeback. The last time I heard about a referee being severely reprimanded was after Robin Whitfield was demoted for sending Ellery Hanley off when he questioned a decision, back in the late 80s.

Cummings is the whole of the problem here, in my opinion. We have got to get that man out of that job, and replace him with someone who has no personal agenda, is a thousand times less arrogant and has at least one grain of common sense.

another decision that had me puzzled was when delaney was given to have knocked on, he then throw the ball into touch, a good distance from where he was stood. at leeds in the cup coley knocked on and kicked the ball away, free kick to leeds. whats the difference?
mcclennan came out with a good comment that radford deserved to go a you cannot throw punches for nothing, it's not that peacock never throws the first punch , is it !! the pressure must be getting to mcclennan as he seems to excuse every foul play from leeds as the opponents fault