Item considered: Late high shot on opponent.

Basically the outcome suggests that the ref got it spot on, worthy of a caution, nothing more, despite Nathan Brown throwing a hissy fit like the one when he was coach at St George.

As I've said from the beginning, my opinion was that it wasnt late and the NO CHARGE backs this up. Sean recieved a caution for Careless contact with the head.

Thaler was vindicated not putting it on report because it still would have resulted in NO CHARGE



Therefore I have been right all along as I said.



I will never get bored, I could do this all night!!

Outcome: NO CHARGE

Your opinion was that it was neither high nor late. Subsequently it has shown to be both but you've only changed your story on the one item.

I stand corrected!




Oh hang on, here you say it WAS late but was not high. Now you're saying it wasn't late but IS high.




Epic fail!

Wasting your breath pal, they are 'Tards, I'm just having fun now!

Poor reading once again, I said "it was late ARGUABLY COMMITED" I argue that it was commited, the judiciary agree with me hence NO CHARGE


VERY epic fail

Brown faces no charge over comments.

I did feel it was neither late or high. subsequently it has been found that he WAS commited ("entitled to make contact"icon_wink.gif but carelessly high.


No amount of replays or judicary outcomes will suggest to me that it was high and until the day I die I will hold true to the fact that a caution has been handed out to make everyone happy Wigan will be happy as there is no ban (and never should have been) and Hudds (you and Nathan) will be happy as it will always be seen that o'loughlin was out of order.


Hence my opinion has never changed and I was right

My opinion = tackle was ARGUABLY LATE and not high
Outcome = player was entitled to make contact (commited) but was carelessly high

Thats fine, although many will feel he has made himself out to be an a**e me included and it shouldnt really worry you lot either way as he has no commitment to you anyway.

??

Do you see what you've done there? You've said you were right when even from reading what you've put it is clear you were wrong!

You make your own inferences on the decision of the RFL, post your earlier opinion which is subsequently shown to be wrong and that you also put in there to show us and then, somehow, then see fit to post you were right?

You are truly certifiable!

he has even less to you!

Im surprised about that, regardless of anyones opinion of the 'late hit', it was still highly inappropriate and unprofessional for a coach to make comments like that.

Thie thread is being locked. I will ban Vectra when i get home. My work computer does not allow me to do it here. I will then tidy it up and we can carry on with discussion if that is what people want.

So the RFL have decided it was late and it was high but that O loughlin was committed to the tackle but reckless on how he hit Robbo.

Law: 15.1(b) Detail: In attempting to complete tackle=#FF0000 player makes contact with head and neck of opponent Player barges opponent after passed ball, no contact with forearm to head, but initial contact shoulder to head, player should have taken more care =#FF0000given opponent had passed ball and contact made after this, player entitled to make some contact with opponent but contact with head careless.

Who cares now no one really. We lost to a quicker more skilful team on the day.

I look forward to the next game at home should be a good one.

We will either lose to Wire in the cup and be desperate to make amends or we will win and then have drawn Wigan in the QFs of the CC so be wanting to prove a point.

It is a pity that we will have had a bruising encounter with Wire before then.

All said and done it's about right. Brown had a wee dummy spit, it happens. Lockers was late but not malicious, it happens. RFL take appropriate action on all parts.

From my own perspective, best of luck v Wire, hope a) you win and b) you come through unscathed ready to set up another decent (and hopefully physical) game v Wigan.

Edited for accuracy.

Then your only claim has proven to be wrong as the panel have clearly stated that he was entitled to make contact. So perhaps you should, in future, put: "in my own misguiided and biased opinion" then we all know where you're coming from, eh?

If he was entitled to make contact, then it wasn't really "late", was it?

Look, if he's hit him after the ball has gone then the hit is late. If the RFL are saying he's entitled to make some contact then they are allowing him the leeway of being commited to some degree but the was hit late. EOS. As it was he was hit late and high and yet still, even now after he has been cautioned for it and it's there in black and white, we are still getting people who don't understand the most basic of concepts and/or the English language.

As I said, it's pretty embarrassing for you.

I don't know where they get "high" from. The impact is clearly in the chest.

Late unmistakably. But high? Never.

And shoulder contact??? WHERE???

I think you may need a new tellybox.

Jesus wept, I had forgotten how totally boss eyed pie eaters were.

It was high and late and he has been reprimanded for it. End of Thread.