I asked this on the VT but it's equally valid here:

Let's say Powell wasn't trying to attack Lineham's eyes - don't you think the ref should have said, [i"Sam, I know you weren't trying to attack Tom Lineham's eyes - but I'm sending you off because [uYOU ATTACKED TOM LINEHAM'S EYES![/u".[/i

I mean, refs don't let someone off for attacking someone's jaw with the elbow because [i"it's accidental"[/i.

I refereed RU for a while. One of the things we were taught is you are not mind readers and can only make decisions on facts and not what you think the player might of intending. In this case the referee doesn't know what the players in intentions were but the facts are the defenders fingers "attacked" the eyes of the ball carrier. Based on facts an attack to the eye and either a red or yellow card.

This was a straight red card. It's a attack to the face with an open hand which looks like a blatant gouge.

Agreed. One thing I'm not sure about is when the referee can ask the 4th official. Multiple replays whilst Lineham was being treated showed it was at least a penalty. Sometimes onfield decisions are changed then the ref's received a word in his ear. If that had been Danny McGuire instead of Lineham, in a meaningful game, my view is that there would have been a penalty as a minimum and more likely a dismissal.

I don't think there was intent but that's irrelevant. Should have been a penalty minimum but a sending off would have been justified IMO

Do you seriously believe in your own self loving opinion that a professional sportsman has the time and the inclination to gouge a winger in the tackle from that angle? Are you and Jake married....or do you just attend the same self righteous seminars?

She disagrees with pretty much everything I say so we definitely could be married.

I haven't accused him of purposely gouging and specifically said I didn't believe it was intentional but that's irrelevant. The rules aren't about intent, they're about what happened

If you go into a tackle with your hand looking like a claw and rake it down / jab it into an opponents face it's likely to cause damage. Don't think there's an accusation of it being premeditated, however it 'looks' pretty bad in the footage and warranted action by the officials.

High tackle for me, to not get a penalty was a joke. Sending off would of been very harsh

We didn't even get a penalty. Really would like to see Ch*lds reasoning on that one.

Definite penalty.

A sending off is at the discretion of the official. I'd say that injuring a man's eyeball would qualify for that.

If his palm is flat, would it have been a slap, and or head high?

I think the fact it was a claw, and eye damage, the ref's decision became more around was it a deliberate gouge? And came to the conclusion it wasn't. He didn't consider the head shot.

If that was a flat palm, it a slap in the face all day and a pen at min.

I agree - certainly an attack to the head - and you see so much less get pulled up for (ie Wattsy last night with an arm around the neck!)

It will be cited no doubt and looked at - but certainly a penalty and on report for me.

Blatant gouging? Come on, get real. He's gone for a grab of the shoulder (hence why his fingers are pinching inwards) and got it wrong (players tend to move!).

Penalty for the careless grab, but nothing more. He never "attacked the eyes". The eyes got in the way of what he was going for, which is an accident.

Agree. Reason he goes high I think is because he's off balance cos lineham is handing him off in his own face. Isn't even looking at him at 1st point of contact.
Watch it at full speed instead of super slow mo or pausing and it's ludicrous to suggest it's intended imo.

It's a serious incident which could easily have done irreparable damage to an incredibly delicate (not to mention - crucial) part of the anatomy. Intent shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Whether he meant to attack Lineham's eyes or not - the end result was precisely the same.

And we see a Bradford player get the Yellow for hand in the face .

Lauaki's reputation still preceding him? I remember when he got a warning from the ref the moment he set foot on the field.

Think there is a bit of difference between the two here though chaps. Yes i am a Wigan fan, But i consider myself to be an unbiased one. Powell has never shown any intent on hurting a fellow player nor do believe he has the balls to do so. He is just a quiet (goes about his business) type player. Doesn't get involves in fisty cuffs and last night was clearly an accident but i did have a little giggle to myself when you weren't even awarded a penalty which it blatantly should have been.

Lauaki on the other hand.............. As yourselves and Wigan know he has always been a poor player but tries to counter that fact by sh*thousing instead. I think thats why Wane signed him, An aggressive but poor forward.. A La Tautai. What Lauaki did today was just plain and simple bullying, because he could. It's easy to knock a full back around who weighs half the weight of you but judjing by Jimmy Lowes' face when he walked off i don't think they will see him in a Bulls shirt again. Gash player, gash attitude, gash mentality.

All the best for next season. Looking forward to seeing some of those youngsters so long as Radford doesn't leave them in the cold.

Sam Powell is a grubby little who actively goes looking for the famed wigan cannonball tackles.

He's someone who does appear to have been drinking the shaun wane kool aid.

Whether he meant it or not - he got rid of arguably Hull's most dangerous player should the opposition go down a man (which they subsequently did).

Also did us a favour getting rid of an awful defender on the flank.

Sorry, I forgot he is going to Warrington.