I understood, but the way I wrote it was wrong. My apologies!

I agree, we agree on this point.

www.hullkr.co.uk/on-the-pitch/ne ... warrington Mantellato suffered a torn retina scoring late last week. Could've been blinded. Doesn't the tackler have a 'duty of care'?

www.hullkr.co.uk/on-the-pitch/ne ... warrington Mantellato suffered a torn retina scoring late last week. Could've been blinded. Doesn't the tackler have a 'duty of care'?

Making his conversion even more impressive.

He should be taken to agincourt and shot by English archers like his ancestors were

It's the sheer bloody mindedness that brings a titter. It is like reading the work of an idiot savant.
Maybe they broke up badly and they can't let it go?

Beside the JB ban it was a good result all round. We should have scored more points in the first half and then could possibly have won the game. Just as important is the fact we got a point, more than we did last year in our opener or against Cas at home and this was done in front of 11,000 fans.

I know I said that it was my final say on the matter but some thing else has come to my attention.

On Tuesday evening Castleford Tigers Supporters Club had one of their regular "meet the coaches events" At the event Powell was asked about the Boudebza tackle and said he has had a phone call from HKR (no name given but I would hazard a guess it was JP) expressing regret and apologising for the incident and wishing Michael Shenton a speedy recovery. Powell said that as far as he was concerned "that was the end of it as far as he was concerned". Which would suggest to me he was happy to accept the apology, so why did Hudgell feel the need to re-ignite the argument?

I know I said that it was my final say on the matter but some thing else has come to my attention.

On Tuesday evening Castleford Tigers Supporters Club had one of their regular "meet the coaches events" At the event Powell was asked about the Boudebza tackle and said he has had a phone call from HKR (no name given but I would hazard a guess it was JP) expressing regret and apologising for the incident and wishing Michael Shenton a speedy recovery. Powell said that as far as he was concerned "that was the end of it as far as he was concerned". Which would suggest to me he was happy to accept the apology, so why did Hudgell feel the need to re-ignite the argument?

Maybe because it's your coach who basically has caused most of this?
Hopefully Rovers fans really unite and the away game boycott is carried out on the mass scale it deserves.

I noticed you have chose not to respond to your statement. I wonder what his statement would have been if the roles had been reversed and a Cas player had caused a season ending injury to your captain.

It was pointed out to you that a Cas player did cause a season ending injury to our captain.

It is a fine but important distinction, but given that JB pleaded not guilty, I'd assume that it was intended as an expression of regret, but not an apology. His description of it as an apology, while not necessarily intentionally so, might itself be seen as inflammatory. Unless the Hull KR representative said 'we apologise' or similar.

The whole assumption of guilt thing apparent in the process has been a big part of the problem.

I agree that our issue really is with the RFL, rather than, or a least much more so than with Cas. They're entitled to their opinion, as we're entitled to ours. The RFL should listen to both, and where they differ look at the evidence, assuming innocence unless that evidence shows otherwise.

Fairly sure campo was the tackler so your argument doesn't hold water. Woof!