=#FF0000No need, consider this a warning. Karen.

=#FF0000And just to be clear, it was for the overriding of the swear filter and unnecessary name calling.

Full stop after the "2 matches"

This is possible my favourite post my Knockers ever.

Reported for personal abuse, a simple explanation of what was clearly a muddled and ambiguous post was all that it needed.

=#FF0000Warning given for the name calling, however it was clear what Jake meant and you were being pedantic.

Diddums

You big baby, just laugh it off, I honestly can't believe you have reported Jake for that.

Oh don't be such a drama queen. And you are a fine one to talk about personal abuse.

Back on topic, using some high level decryption, I have deciphered the opening post and we really need to improve our discipline as it has cost us one game and nearly another.

I've just been offered a forum knighthood by the mods

The next time you defame Radford with your vitriolic abuse or use personal abuse towards other posters as you regularly do, you deserve to be banned for a very long time, pedant

And so say all of us!!!

Back on topic,

Turgut has got off lightly in my opinion here and should thank his lucky stars that the rest of the team held firm to win that game.

With regards to the bans so far, I don't thing we can have any arguments. I see Singleton from Leeds was given 6 games, that must have been a bad one!

It was an elbow to the back of Bird's head.

split his head apparently - had to go off for stitches

Video was on on Twitter - its a bad one.

Edit - but some Leeds fans are saying Turgut's was worse

No, it simply wasn't clear.
Clear would have said
Received 2 match ban, 4 games in and 3 players have received bans, it was lazy writing and ambiguous hence why I asked for clarification, that's not being pedantic in the slightest, it's simply asking a poster to clarify what they meant.

Whilst I agree it could've been written better, a simple Google would've given you the answer you were seeking therefore emitting the need for the sarcastic post. Everyone else knew what Jake meant. This constant bickering between you and several others is getting very tedious and if you all can't just ignore each other and crack on, then bans will start to be given.

Radford school of tackling. I posted this a couple of weeks ago. Hull need to sort this out sharpish before a) someone gets really hurt and b) it starts to affect your future results (can't believe I just typed that last bit). Ahem, no please, carry on I like the sound of point b.

2015 no red cards, four yellow
2016 no red cards, one yellow

Hardly cause for concern.

Not many of those this season. You didn't mention how many players and how many games suspensions in previous seasons though.

This is yet another thing that's improved over Radford's tenure to date. Maybe Radford's turning us in to a top 4 club has meant the RFL are more lenient, who knows?

Looking at the disciplinary list of charged "hull" players, it's surprising how many rovers players actually crop up.
I don't think we come out too badly - Watts, Taylor, Kelly and Paea are in there, and one or two others.



I didn't realise we're now a dirty side - best not go anymore.

But the Rovers Rejects now playing for you are being coached with the Radford tackling technique.

Point taken though, Wigan play dirty and win stuff so why not Hull? I just think you can expect an average of 1 suspension a game until it gets sorted. You'll run out of EGPs and suspensions will be longer. Still.....if it works in terms of league position, bully for you (pun intended).

Don't talk rubbish, Radford has been in charge for 3 years, in that time we have been pretty good discipline wise, this season we have been a bit dumb that's all, nothing to do with coaching, maybe a bit of over enthusiasm and the will to win.

Just looked last season we have the least yellow and red cards in the league.