Reported in Halifax Courier

Halifax v Sheffield Eagles
Date: 13 September 2010
By James Roberts
HALIFAX chairman Michael Steele appears to have raised the prospect of the club's former Sheffield Eagles forward Sam Barlow playing in Thursday night's Co-operative Championship final eliminator against the Eagles.
Barlow, who began his career with at the Shay as a 16 year old before leaving to join Huddersfield, rejoined his hometown club from Sheffield ahead of July's transfer deadline.
Under the terms of his release, Barlow was apparently precluded from plaADVERTISEMENT
ying against the Eagles in 2010 and duly sat out the league fixture - which Fax won 38-24 to complete a league double - at Bramall Lane last month.
But with a place in the Grand Final up for grabs, Fax look set to question whether that ban does include play off fixtures, a move that is likely to go down like a lead balloon in the Steel City.
Steele was playing his cards close to his chest, but admitted: "I will be consulting the Rugby Football League as to the effectiveness of the reported restriction."
Fax's move is partly born of an ever-expanding casualty list, with the club's treatment room full to capacity in the wake of last Thursday's bruising 46-16 reverse at champions elect Featherstone.
Australians Luke Branighan, Dylan Nash and Shad Royston are all nursing leg injuries, while forwards Said Tamghart and David Wrench will both need to pass the so-called 'headtest' before being cleared to play after being concussed against Rovers.

his whole attitude, his try celebrations, his demeanour.

i appreciate his inclusion didnt really make a difference if he hadnt of played you would still have won and fair enough to you on that.
i just dont think it is any was for a proffessional rugby league player to act to be honest. the sport is better than people like him. and dont even get me started on worrincy goading our players on the breakaway try.

yes you have the tape, so do i but that didnt capture all barlows actions.

You see, what we are not party to is all that goes on in the tackles, and all the goading that has gone on before any that you have seen.

I think the main problem was that everyone was concentrating on Barlow for the evening and forgetting the other 16 players that we had.

We all know that Barlow is a hot head and despite the attempts of some players I think he handled himself very well indeed. As for the try celebration. I have watched it a few times and I cant really explain what it means. It doesnt seem to be a contract tearing up action as some suggest?

Game over and I do look forward to our games over the next few years and hopefully Bramall lane will have sorted themselves out regarding the ticket arrangements.

The Barlow issue, however may rumble on for a while yet.

He was playing for his home town club in a semi-final and you don't expect him to show passion?

Did you see after the game - there appeared to be no problem with the Eagles players and coaching staff (probably except 1) shaking his hand and giving him a manly hug. So they don't seem to have a problem with Sam and him playing last night.

It should be about what happens in the pitch and trying to stop a player doing what he gets paid for week in and week out is petty but that seems to be Aston for you!!

Sam's reputation preceeds him. I know him and he is very passionate about the game. When we beat you at the Shay in 2009 the week after Calland's now legendary "country mile" comment, he scored for us and his reaction then was rather unprofessional, celebrating like a madman infront of the home fans. I still have it on DVD.

I deffinately saw a tearing up action from him, i was stood at the front of the south stand as he did it. That aside, yes this will rumble on, and as someone else has already said, itll all come out in the wash.

Right I don't want to be the Scrooge here but, as legal proceedings are EXTREMELY likely, I'm going to have to close this thread. If any other thread is started regarding Sam it will be removed and the user will be warned, and subsequently banned if they repeat offend so to speak. We don't want to leave ourselves open to any libel and we shouldn't discuss the matter any further until it has been resolved by all parties concerned. I'll leave this thread on here so people can read it, thanks for your co-operation.