Quote ="Juan Cornetto"It was the histerics of the Sky comentary team that blew the incident up with talk of leading with the elbow. IMO he clearly led with the forearm and hit the chest first. Because it slid up and made contact with the head it was rightly penalised. Most props (and other forwards) use a similar style when in heavy traffic and most get penalised when the timing is off including all of ours at some time. etc. Fielden has done it for years. So why pick on Cross?'" Because most forwards run with the forearm vertical or near vertical (protecting your face with the forearm) with the elbow pointing down. If you run with the foream horizontal as Cross did then the danger is that someone tackling you gets the elbow in the face, or your arm rises up and someone gets the elbow in the face. It wasn't a bad one, penalty seemed enough - certainly not Scott Gibbs style, and not anywhere near as bad as this... www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6kXCqzLblQ

Quote ="Juan Cornetto"It was the histerics of the Sky comentary team that blew the incident up with talk of leading with the elbow. IMO he clearly led with the forearm and hit the chest first. Because it slid up and made contact with the head it was rightly penalised. Most props (and other forwards) use a similar style when in heavy traffic and most get penalised when the timing is off including all of ours at some time. etc. Fielden has done it for years. So why pick on Cross?'" Because most forwards run with the forearm vertical or near vertical (protecting your face with the forearm) with the elbow pointing down. If you run with the foream horizontal as Cross did then the danger is that someone tackling you gets the elbow in the face, or your arm rises up and someone gets the elbow in the face. It wasn't a bad one, penalty seemed enough - certainly not Scott Gibbs style, and not anywhere near as bad as this... www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6kXCqzLblQ

Quote ="Andy Gilder"You really do need to check the RFL website before hitting submit. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2650 Pretty much my view of it at the time - didn't think there was any intent to take out the defender with either forearm or elbow, just clumsy.'" They're entitled to their opinion. My opinion after several TV replays was that he raised the arm into the face (forearm or elbow I care not - at that speed with that motion the actual contact point is as much luck as anything else) in a way which appeared (to me, only he knows) to be intentional, and followed through after the first contact. The judiciary saw it differently, but reading their report does nothing to change my opinion. I've just watched it again and that didn't change my opinion either.

Quote ="Andy Gilder"You really do need to check the RFL website before hitting submit. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2650 Pretty much my view of it at the time - didn't think there was any intent to take out the defender with either forearm or elbow, just clumsy.'" They're entitled to their opinion. My opinion after several TV replays was that he raised the arm into the face (forearm or elbow I care not - at that speed with that motion the actual contact point is as much luck as anything else) in a way which appeared (to me, only he knows) to be intentional, and followed through after the first contact. The judiciary saw it differently, but reading their report does nothing to change my opinion. I've just watched it again and that didn't change my opinion either.

Without the benefit or hindrance of Sky's coverage and opinion, I've only seen the incident at the game itself followed by a brief replay on the big screen and I thought it looked bad both times. I don't think you should be defending the action just because it's a Leeds player and just because it's Cross.

At the game I thought it looked bad but not seen the replay from sky. I thought honestly that both cas trys were borderline, but to be fair I have seen worse forward passes allowed. The second looked slightly more forward to me but the first did seem harsh

I was stating my opinion in defence of Cross which was backed up by the disciplinary panel. Whereas your opinion on almost everything about Leeds is negative and has been proven wrong on this occassion.

Your unquestioning deference towards the judgements of the inconsistent RFL disciplinary panel when it suits your agenda is noted.

And your refusal to accept an independant judgement when it suits your agenda is also noted.

Independ[size=150e[/sizent.

They are entitled to their opinion which doesn't correspond with mine or quite a few others on this board.

It's refreshing to see some put aside club loyalties (agenda) and see the incident for what it was.

Fortunately, it didn't cost Leeds this time... the penalty or the potential ban... next time might be different and Cross needs to cut out leading with the forearm and/or elbow.

Joel Tomkins received a sending off and a two match ban for a not too dissimilar action in the Wigan V Hull fixture earlier this season. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2403 Unlike the RFL's Disciplinary Panel I'll continue to take a consistent view with regards to the two incidents. Neither incident (viewed and treated in isolation) deserved more than an on field warning and a penalty. Here's my observation though, had Silverwood done as Ganson did and sent the offender off then I'd be fairly confident that decision would have been backed up by the disciplinary panel by way of a guilty verdict and quite possibly a ban.

Joel Tomkins received a sending off and a two match ban for a not too dissimilar action in the Wigan V Hull fixture earlier this season. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2403 Unlike the RFL's Disciplinary Panel I'll continue to take a consistent view with regards to the two incidents. Neither incident (viewed and treated in isolation) deserved more than an on field warning and a penalty. Here's my observation though, had Silverwood done as Ganson did and sent the offender off then I'd be fairly confident that decision would have been backed up by the disciplinary panel by way of a guilty verdict and quite possibly a ban.

Quote ="tvoc"Joel Tomkins received a sending off and a two match ban for a not too dissimilar action in the Wigan V Hull fixture earlier this season. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2403 Unlike the RFL's Disciplinary Panel I'll continue to take a consistent view with regards to the two incidents. Neither incident (viewed and treated in isolation) deserved more than an on field warning and a penalty. Here's my observation though, had Silverwood done as Ganson did and sent the offender off then I'd be fairly confident that decision would have been backed up by the disciplinary panel by way of a guilty verdict and quite possibly a ban.'" The RFL Disciplinary Panel, inconsistent with their decision making? Surely not!?

Quote ="tvoc"Joel Tomkins received a sending off and a two match ban for a not too dissimilar action in the Wigan V Hull fixture earlier this season. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2403 Unlike the RFL's Disciplinary Panel I'll continue to take a consistent view with regards to the two incidents. Neither incident (viewed and treated in isolation) deserved more than an on field warning and a penalty. Here's my observation though, had Silverwood done as Ganson did and sent the offender off then I'd be fairly confident that decision would have been backed up by the disciplinary panel by way of a guilty verdict and quite possibly a ban.'" The RFL Disciplinary Panel, inconsistent with their decision making? Surely not!?

"Should now get a ban."

After the RFL had already made their decision on the matter public knowledge, meaning the player wasn't going to get a ban.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion - bit of research behind them wouldn't go amiss though.

For my twopennorth we wanted a big no nonsense rough house Prop who got the job done.

We've got one.

And I'm glad.

Note forearm not elbow.

It was my reaction at the time

My thoughts exactly.

So your quibble was simply about use of the future tense instead of past?

If I said "he should have got a ban" would that be OK? I don't feel that it materially alters the point I was making.

Mine too. I'm just not convinced smashing somebody in the face with your forearm is OK either. Less damaging, obviously, but still capable of damaging faces.

I have an impression (based on memory rather than stats) that his indiscipline causes too many problems for him to be considered to be getting the job done. I may be wrong though. I'm also not sure that conceding penalties while in possession doesn't count as "nonsense" to be honest.

As I say, facts and figures may show that I'm mistaken.

Have we been dominated by any packs of late?

Leeds haven't faced any packs of late.

Nope. Ignoring the opportunity to cast aspersions on the quality of pack we've faced lately (Huddersfield's pack tore us all sorts of new orifices so it depends what is meant by 'of late') I've been very impressed by several of our forwards over the last 3 games (JJB being the stand-out, but Clarkson, Ablett, Leuluai and Bailey have also been good) and Cross hasn't been one of them. Winning a forward battle doesn't immediately suggest that all your forwards have been awesome.

For the most part Cross does the basics OK, but I wonder why we needed to go to an Aussie to deliver OK. This may be a problem of expectations being too high I suppose.

Quote ="tvoc"Joel Tomkins received a sending off and a two match ban for a not too dissimilar action in the Wigan V Hull fixture earlier this season. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2403 Unlike the RFL's Disciplinary Panel I'll continue to take a consistent view with regards to the two incidents. Neither incident (viewed and treated in isolation) deserved more than an on field warning and a penalty. Here's my observation though, had Silverwood done as Ganson did and sent the offender off then I'd be fairly confident that decision would have been backed up by the disciplinary panel by way of a guilty verdict and quite possibly a ban.'" While I agree with your observation had Cross been sent off. The fact is that he wasn't sent off because the situation was quite different. Cross was guilty of leading with the arm and making initial contact with the chest in a clumsy rather than deliberate manner. The reactions of the Cas players would indicate that is what they felt too. In the case of Tompkins the ref was certain his action was quite deliberate and it immediately followed a brawl in which he was also involved. So really quite different senarios.

Quote ="tvoc"Joel Tomkins received a sending off and a two match ban for a not too dissimilar action in the Wigan V Hull fixture earlier this season. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2403 Unlike the RFL's Disciplinary Panel I'll continue to take a consistent view with regards to the two incidents. Neither incident (viewed and treated in isolation) deserved more than an on field warning and a penalty. Here's my observation though, had Silverwood done as Ganson did and sent the offender off then I'd be fairly confident that decision would have been backed up by the disciplinary panel by way of a guilty verdict and quite possibly a ban.'" While I agree with your observation had Cross been sent off. The fact is that he wasn't sent off because the situation was quite different. Cross was guilty of leading with the arm and making initial contact with the chest in a clumsy rather than deliberate manner. The reactions of the Cas players would indicate that is what they felt too. In the case of Tompkins the ref was certain his action was quite deliberate and it immediately followed a brawl in which he was also involved. So really quite different senarios.

Spot on. He does exactly what it says on the tin and he has shown a good work rate with allround stats as good or better than any of our other props.

I too would have liked us to have signed a really top quality prop when JP was injured. But as none were available we have ended up with an experienced, rough edged, tough NRL style prop who is getting on with his job and doing the hardwork and IMO will become a valuable member of the squad.

I can understand why some posters have felt that perhaps a couple of the younger "on loan" props could have stepped up to the mark. But at the time of signing Cross it would have been a quite a gamble considering Burgess had still to prove his fitness after his operation and Bailey not fit to start the season.

When compared with the other props Cross has made double the marker tackles, has made the 2nd best metres per carry and has made the 2nd best number of tackles per game. His stats have been achieved with less time on field so he has perhaps the best work rate of the props.

Props in order of games played

.........................Kirke.......Burgess.......Cross......Leuluai........Bailey......
Appearances.........12............10............10............9...............5.........
Metres...............768...........957..........645..........799............381........
Carries...............108...........145...........90...........117.............52........
Tackles..............246...........208..........215..........138............110........
Marker tackles......26............24............47............17..............13.......
Miss tackles.........14............13............17............17...............8........
Errors...................5..............3.............4..............3...............2.......
Penalties...............3..............5............6...............5...............4.......
Yellow Card...........0..............1............0.............. 0...............0.......
Red Card...............0..............0............0...............0...............1......
Metres/carry........7.11..........6.6.........7.17..........6.83............7.33.....
Tackles/game......20.5..........20.6.......21.5..........15.33............22.........
Metres/game.......64............95.7.......64.5...........88.78...........76.2......
Carries/game........9.............14.5........9..............13...............10.4......

Not actually that high on the penalty count. Perhaps it's just that his penalties are more eye-catching. Perhaps I have been too harsh and/or expected too much?

I think perhaps many expected too much of Cross and have been unfairly critical, when he is doing at the very least as well as any other prop, yet are prepared to overlook the faults and poor performance of their favourites.

Bailey has made a big improvement in his go forward (but this is only over 5 games so far) and Kirke has also shown a big improvement in the unaccustomed role of prop.

Spot on Juan.

That example falls into my book on his Technically Awful moments.

'clumsy' 'sloppy' et al

Least he could do no damage with us having a healthy lead and only 30 mins to play. Phew.