It seems the RL can prove it.cpwigan wrote:Can anybody prove that Mac hit Laffranchi ? Try to recreate what many incl some here are suggesting and it is not easy to do.
Get over it, it's done and dusted now.
It seems the RL can prove it.cpwigan wrote:Can anybody prove that Mac hit Laffranchi ? Try to recreate what many incl some here are suggesting and it is not easy to do.
That sort of response is why the RFL are untouchable, and it is not a personal attack on you cow yeds!cow yeds wrote:It seems the RL can prove it.cpwigan wrote:Can anybody prove that Mac hit Laffranchi ? Try to recreate what many incl some here are suggesting and it is not easy to do.
Get over it, it's done and dusted now.
You're right.TrueBlueWarrior wrote:That sort of response is why the RFL are untouchable, and it is not a personal attack on you cow yeds!cow yeds wrote:It seems the RL can prove it.cpwigan wrote:Can anybody prove that Mac hit Laffranchi ? Try to recreate what many incl some here are suggesting and it is not easy to do.
Get over it, it's done and dusted now.
I do not know. Try running at a decent speed and hitting somebody from behind. It is not as easy as it appears to make perfect contact. I saw a player trying to get up fast to put a hit/tackle/challenge on a player. The player passes before he gets there so he commits a late hit/tackle/challenge. He primarily makes contact with the back of that player which is no different than many challenges some penalised / some not. Here is a though, how many times is a kicker hit late? How many times do the RFL decide he was commited so contact although late was unavoidable?cherry.pie wrote:Are you suggesting McIlorum didn't actually hit him at all?cpwigan wrote:Can anybody prove that Mac hit Laffranchi ? Try to recreate what many incl some here are suggesting and it is not easy to do.
Luckily this week some people fought for 23 years rather than adopt your stance.cow yeds wrote:You're right.TrueBlueWarrior wrote:That sort of response is why the RFL are untouchable, and it is not a personal attack on you cow yeds!cow yeds wrote: It seems the RL can prove it.
Get over it, it's done and dusted now.![]()
In short, no. I suspect that there are only two individuals who honestly know. MM has said that he definitely made contact with the shoulder first, Laffranchi has stayed quiet throughout the whole episode.cpwigan wrote:Can anybody prove that Mac hit Laffranchi ? Try to recreate what many incl some here are suggesting and it is not easy to do.
What's that got to do with owt on here??cpwigan wrote:Luckily this week some people fought for 23 years rather than adopt your stance.cow yeds wrote:You're right.TrueBlueWarrior wrote: That sort of response is why the RFL are untouchable, and it is not a personal attack on you cow yeds!![]()
You're on about the reply they found to show at half time from behind Laffranchi. Front on and side on it looked like he brushed over the shoulder before a round armed forearn/wrist landed on the face. That reply looked really bad. Way worse than it looked live. Still cna't beleive three games was upheld. They had a chance to fit it in line with the kind of appraoch they normally take but didn't do anything about it. We might have been better off if MM got a ban after the Bradford red card, they might have felt less inclined to get him this time.Mike wrote:I remember one replay from somewhat later in the match where it looked really bad. Looked like the first contact was on the head. All the others look like it slipped up from the top of the shoulder. So I guess the policy is based on the worst looking replay.
TBH, it was late and high - not that i thought that when i was at the game.
THe whole RFL hugely lacks transparency and consistency. I'm not saying there is corruption, but the setup and laack of accountability at the moment is an ideal system to hide or develop corruption. Just look at the Hillsborough policing actions that have come out now. If you can act behind closed doors with no public recourse to finding out what went on, then a culture of corruption can develop.
THe worst example of all of this is the franchising system - its basically just being made up to suit whatever the whim of a couple of guys is. I can believe that because they do not publish the full details of their decision making process.
A great deal. You are arguing what is done is done, no point challenging authority / complaining for what is right. Exactly the opposite of what people should do as exemplified by events yesterday.cow yeds wrote:What's that got to do with owt on here??cpwigan wrote:Luckily this week some people fought for 23 years rather than adopt your stance.cow yeds wrote: You're right.![]()