I can see why cudgel is unhappy that a process overseen by a former warringtpn player and coach sees his club captain banned for a game against warrington

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the crusher tackle ruling has been changed.

If the player in possession turns in the tackle and continues gaining ground moving "backwards", then he's taking more of a risk of suffering a crusher tackle.
It would still be an offence if committed, but is now treated more leniently.

So there are now crusher tackles and crusher tackles, depending on …...

Yes, Warrington need all the help they can in beating Hull KR.

So do you think that no-one should be part of a disciplinary panel if anyone playing in a game they are reviewing are due to play a club the panelist has been involved with sometime over the last, say, twenty years?

Yeah. It's like a judge presiding over a case involving his mate

It's only an issue for Hudgell when it directly impacts Rovers, thereby looking like sour grapes - see Justin Poore, John Boudebza etc.

Wasnt hudgell overseeing some revamp of the disciplinary process?

Correct, he did last year. Maybe if he'd made recommendations about who could execute it, disqualifying anyone with any previous affiliation to any club biu still with on depth technical knowledge of the game at the top level, this could have been avoided.

Fairly quiet, although Paea gets 2 more warnings for use of knees. https://www.rugby-league.com/article/55 ... view-panel

Fairly quiet, although Paea gets 2 more warnings for use of knees. https://www.rugby-league.com/article/55 ... view-panel

2 warrington players banned. If lineham had been sent off as he should have been wed likely be playing rovers in the semi

Agreed and I’m just amazed at how yet again Chris Hill escapes any form of punishment

That may well happen in the semi, particularly if Connor gets in his face. Not sure Hill is a popular player with other teams, a bit like Joel Tompkins, not supposed to be tackled and tries to intimidate the ref. I remember a few years ago, FC went out to ruffle Tompkins feathers in an away game and he was sin binned, just couldn’t take it.

Harsh on Rovers for Lineham to only get 10 minutes in the game, when the panel deem it to be worthy of 240 minutes of non playing time.

Is there a case now for 1 of the games of the ban to be against the team the offence was against so they actually do get some benefit? So 2 games for Lineham now, and then his last game in the next game Vs. Rovers?