Suzy

Whether he buckled his knee or not it is still high.
Even if everything you say is fact, of which I don't agree, he'd still have hit him high.

I thought that Nicky Kiss clown was the biggest gump on these forums but this idiot suzy takes some beating. Stop rising guys let her go back to eating her hollands under her bridge.

If this is all for the benefit of the Wigan troll, it's a waste of time; he's revelling in the attention and probably reporting it all back on the Wigan forum.

I haven't seen any neutral observer suggest that this was anything other than a regulation clothesline tackle - which shouldn't be a surprise, as SoL has been getting away with that for years; the fact that he's of previous good character appears to be a circular defence - if that's taken in to account at every appearance (of which there have been over 30) he'd never be charged with anything.

I'm less interested in retrospectively changing the punishment for this specific incident (although if they appeal as per Wane's comments, I'd enjoy seeing it increased)and more interested in the disciplinary process being fixed - it's clearly not fit for purpose and this season alone has seen some bizarrely inconsistent sanctions handed down; when Chairmen, coaches, players, supporters and pundits are all moaning about an aspect of the game, that must send a fairly strong message about its usefulness. It's time the RFL made a serious effort to restore some credibility.

In the face of evidence, you present an opinion backed up with no evidence. Oh dear. Oh very dear. True colours and all that. If this was in court, this would be the point where the jury ss.

If you want me to mitigate slightly for Lockers, if you'd like, Annakin is one of the shortest people in the Wakey side. He has no height to lose. He did, however, lose consciousness, the rest of the season, and the chance of a Wembley trip with his hometown club.

In contrast, you have lost merely your credibility. Like Annakin, it was short in the first place.

Spot on that Slugger

Very well written post...

You have provided no real evidence either, Slugger. The jury would be told to disregard your spurious "evidence" before it got that far.

You seem well versed in what goes on at a disciplinary meeting, or showing extreme arrogance towards a coach who has more experience than yourself on these matters?
CC was the coach at HKR when Boudebza got his ban upgraded from 2 to 4, through medical reports after the incident.
Now the full extent of Annakins injury layoff is clear, it would be unfair for O'Loughlin not to face retrospective punishment, wouldn't it?

Boudebza attacked the to-be-injured knee, O'Loughlin made contact with the shoulder/neck region, not the affected knee - it is simply not attributable.

Wouldn't quite call it 'attacked', he was effecting the tackle by stopping the players go forward, in what was a 'legitimate' tackle.
Whereas O'Loughlins 'illegal' tackle was a major contributor in what happened afterwards.
What's done is done but it seems that only 'Gareth', '21-12' and yourself can't or won't see the injustice that has happened.

It's funny how the most vociferous anti-Lockers drivel comes from the mother of those most affected. It's a little one-eyed.

As soon as someone shows me proof of O'Loughlin being responsible for the knee injury I'll concede.

Maybe if 'Lockers' hadn't been a mile offside, wrong footed and leaving a big gap in the defence, none of this would have happened?

You are a complete and utter tool...

No more questions m'lord, the defendant is obviously not in a fit state of mind to carry on!