It was lazy as the player was going down and was at waist height when Danny hit him with a bent swinging arm.



You can not compare the two tackles. One was at full height and one was at waist height. One game is fair and if he appeals then silly lad as it can be increased / decreased or left the same. Not worth the risk. Also a careless tackle around the head at any height deserves an automatic one match ban.

Yeh clenching your fist and swinging the are is totally reckless, no malicious intent whatsoever

It was not lazy. He had intent, a clenched fist and a swinging arm, how is that lazy? The player was tackled and, as you say, was going down anyway. The lazy thing would have been either to do nothing, make a token grap at the player or flop on the player as he was going down. What Maguire did was premeditated because he had spat his dummy out and lost the plot and was intentional, he saw an easy target and went for it, it was certainly not lazy.

Quote Famous="Famous"It was not lazy. He had intent, a clenched fist and a swinging arm, how is that lazy? The player was tackled and, as you say, was going down anyway. The lazy thing would have been either to do nothing, make a token grap at the player or flop on the player as he was going down. What Maguire did was premeditated because he had spat his dummy out and lost the plot and was intentional, he saw an easy target and went for it, it was certainly not lazy.'" Not according to his coach: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19699976 Quote FamousLeeds coach Brian McDermott, who spoke on behalf of his player at the hearing, claimed =#800000it was a careless act and an "open-handed tackle" in an effort to prevent an offload by Anderson. Although McGuire hit Anderson's head, McDermott argued that he was aiming for the ball and his arm would have made contact with the ball but for his opponent falling in the tackle. '"

Quote Famous="Famous"It was not lazy. He had intent, a clenched fist and a swinging arm, how is that lazy? The player was tackled and, as you say, was going down anyway. The lazy thing would have been either to do nothing, make a token grap at the player or flop on the player as he was going down. What Maguire did was premeditated because he had spat his dummy out and lost the plot and was intentional, he saw an easy target and went for it, it was certainly not lazy.'" Not according to his coach: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19699976 Quote FamousLeeds coach Brian McDermott, who spoke on behalf of his player at the hearing, claimed =#800000it was a careless act and an "open-handed tackle" in an effort to prevent an offload by Anderson. Although McGuire hit Anderson's head, McDermott argued that he was aiming for the ball and his arm would have made contact with the ball but for his opponent falling in the tackle. '"

i believe that the 1 game ban was about right,but where the problem lies is in the consistency of the panel that adjudicates

paul wood got away with a blatant punch into abletts face at wembley and got away scott free.

so is that now the benchmark for this type of indiscretion?

i wouldn't bank on it as someone will get banned for the self same incident the next time it occurs

To be fair, this is what the majority on here have been saying all along.



Using the Good Friday brawl as an example (Where Mossop was subsequently banned for one match for the [uONE[/u punch he threw at Magennis to effectively end the brawl) and the [uONE[/u punch Micky Mac threw against the Bradford player and was sent off.



Now when you see similar offences taking place week after week on SKY it does get annoying that there doesn't seem to be any consistency....either by the officials on the pitch, and/or retrospectively by the RFL disciplinary panel.

Now this is what the majority of us have been saying on here for weeks. It is also what Sam T has been tweeting and the opinion Wane has been offering to the press.



Because of this we have received nothing but criticism particularly on your board =#BF4000(and from your personally)



Now that you are on the receiving end, you suddenly get it?



EDIT - i take that back. I have got you mixed up with another loiner (in my defence you all kind of merge into one). My apologies

Yeah especially when the game was getting very heated at that point with a few mini scraps earlier. He meant it and I for one am glad sufficient punishment has been given for a change

So we can all be clear now, the criteria for leniency is an OPEN hand regardless of where and what with the rest of contact is made. Don't forget Cummins has already commented on this tactic.

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=537846&tsmp=1348607751 You can see why Leeds fans are so loved

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=537846&tsmp=1348607751 You can see why Leeds fans are so loved

Classy stuff.



It's all building nicely in fairness though and i'm expecting a fantastic game on Friday.



I just wish a crowd the game deserved would turn up but that looks extremely unlikely.

I can just about live with one game but IMO he should of got two. You cant compare it to Mickys because Mickys was late, high and intentional. This was just a swinging arm aimed purposely at the head and McGuire did it very crafty when Anderson was low in the tackle so as not to make it look as intentional. IMO this sort of thing is almost as bad as dropping on somebodys head whilst they are tackled on the floor. Anderson had no way to protect himself and it could easily of ended up with a broken jaw or similar.



If this had been Hock commiting the offence i am almost certain he would of got the maximum ban possible. If Leeds appeal and he gets away with it then it will make a mockery of the game.