Never said I was, just pointing out that Sam seems to have taken a one sided view. Radford was wrong to react to what he perceived to have happened.







I'd go for incompetent tbh



I fully expect Bailey's never banned etc record to be wheeled out shortly

What?



TMFMISL never once looked where his elbows were landing + Radford hit him whilst he was defenceless = Radford the thug + Bailey innocent.

So all those people, with their years of experience in running the game at the top domestic level, have all continually got it wrong and the population of the VT have been right all along?



I've got a rock that keeps away tigers, I'll sell you it for £200 if you want.

So our governing body have done the same then? I suggest you get your quill and ink pot at the ready for letters to League Weekly and News of the World.

The fact that they said it was a forearm rather than an elbow leads me to believe they are fairly incompetent, yes!

I don't have to look where someone's head is to know it's there. There are other senses. If someone is tackling me, I'm pretty sure I know where is head is (above where his arms are grabbing me!). And that doesn't explain how he accidentally hit him more than three times. If I stood on someone's head three times in a row, I don't think they'd consider it an accident! I think they'd wonder why I didn't stop after the first two!



And we will pretend that Bailey didn't attempt to hit a restrained and defenceless Lee Radford afterwards as well, shall we. Because obviously that would make your point about him not being a thug a poor one.





(And that's before we even mention the head butt attempt!).



If Radford is a thug for reacting, then so is Bailey.

really? where's Lee Radfords head right now? no looking!

On his shoulders looking forward to Saturday's match probably, seeing as the ban has been overturned.

Or maybe people like Dean Sampson, Ikram Butt, George Fairbairn know a bit more about RL than you,

good for him, id rather see players on the field than on the sidelines

If they were that clever, how come they didn't stick to the same decision about Radford on appeal?