Jake Emmitt : Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:58 pm  

Jake has escaped a ban for fighting in last Fridays game but did receive a £500 fine. Andy Coley will miss tomorrow nights game after receiving a 1 match ban for running-in and punching against Leeds.

Re: Jake Emmitt : Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:30 pm  

Ponterflfan wrote:

Jake has escaped a ban for fighting in last Fridays game but did receive a £500 fine. Andy Coley will miss tomorrow nights game after receiving a 1 match ban for running-in and punching against Leeds.

There's nothing like consistency, and that's nothing like consistency.

Re: Jake Emmitt : Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:31 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

There's nothing like consistency, and that's nothing like consistency.

Well, you see, running in and throwing a punch is a worse offence ergo more significant punishment.

Re: Jake Emmitt : Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:25 am  

I didn't see the Emmitt/Cooper "fight", but the fact that it was a "fight" implies there was more than one punch thrown. The fact that they were found guilty but miraculously escaped a ban just confirms the inconsistency and apparent favouritism towards Warrington. A £500 fine is no real punishment - particularly when a ban would have ruled Cooper out of the Huddersfield game.

Do you think Morley deserved a ban for his high tackles against Saints or Carvell for his horrendous late challenge on Dureau which resulted in his hospitalisation?

Re: Jake Emmitt : Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:42 am  

Fames wrote:

I didn't see the Emmitt/Cooper "fight", but the fact that it was a "fight" implies there was more than one punch thrown. The fact that they were found guilty but miraculously escaped a ban just confirms the inconsistency and apparent favouritism towards Warrington. A £500 fine is no real punishment - particularly when a ban would have ruled Cooper out of the Huddersfield game.

Do you think Morley deserved a ban for his high tackles against Saints or Carvell for his horrendous late challenge on Dureau which resulted in his hospitalisation?

bless

Re: Jake Emmitt : Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:40 pm  

Fames wrote:

I didn't see the Emmitt/Cooper "fight", but the fact that it was a "fight" implies there was more than one punch thrown. The fact that they were found guilty but miraculously escaped a ban just confirms the inconsistency and apparent favouritism towards Warrington. A £500 fine is no real punishment - particularly when a ban would have ruled Cooper out of the Huddersfield game.

Do you think Morley deserved a ban for his high tackles against Saints or Carvell for his horrendous late challenge on Dureau which resulted in his hospitalisation?

Mate tbf it was nothing like a 'fight' and i was amazed that both players were called up especially after they were both sin-binned, I cant speak about the Coley incident as i aint seen it but what i would say is that the game is in danger of having its natural aggressive side taken away by people sat behind a desk. What is wrong with two big guys having a 'bit of biff' now and then?

Delboy66(aye of the tigers fanzine)

Re: Jake Emmitt : Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:10 pm  

Gutted for the lad, arguably our most consistent foward all year. Seemed to mouth 'Is it bad ?' to the physio, then his reaction told the story. Really hope it's not a bad one.

He needs a 2 to 3 year contract to cheer the lad up

Re: Jake Emmitt : Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:11 pm  

3 years defo. Our player of the year IMO

Re: Jake Emmitt : Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:15 am  

Man of the match last night, he put in an outstanding performance and lead a light pack from the front. I hope his injury isn't too bad because we really will miss him if he's out for a long spell.