Re: RD 22 | Salford Red Devils (H) : Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:16 pm  

Jack Burton wrote:

https://twitter.com/SamBrocksom101/status/1557330129046626305

“I can’t speyk,”

Re: RD 22 | Salford Red Devils (H) : Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:23 pm  

What the fk is that?!

Re: RD 22 | Salford Red Devils (H) : Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:36 pm  

Seth wrote:

What the fk is that?!

I don’t buy the bias against one club stuff but after seeing that I’m having some doubts, there must 10 or more of those incidents every match.

Re: RD 22 | Salford Red Devils (H) : Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:44 pm  

Why are they not appealing that?!

Re: RD 22 | Salford Red Devils (H) : Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:01 pm  

https://twitter.com/SamBrocksom101/stat ... 9046626305 is this not exactly the same? nothing in either imo https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxUlWqQ9 ... uAekDwMngz Seth wrote: Why are they not appealing that?! and risk RFL giving another frivolous ban? they probably think whats the point

https://twitter.com/SamBrocksom101/stat ... 9046626305 is this not exactly the same? nothing in either imo https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxUlWqQ9 ... uAekDwMngz Seth wrote: Why are they not appealing that?! and risk RFL giving another frivolous ban? they probably think whats the point

Re: RD 22 | Salford Red Devils (H) : Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:07 pm  

Neruda wrote: https://twitter.com/SamBrocksom101/status/1557330129046626305 is this not exactly the same? nothing in either imo https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxUlWqQ9 ... uAekDwMngz and risk RFL giving another frivolous ban? they probably think whats the point What a fuc king joke. Surely they could put those 2 incidents together in an appeal.

Neruda wrote: https://twitter.com/SamBrocksom101/status/1557330129046626305 is this not exactly the same? nothing in either imo https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxUlWqQ9 ... uAekDwMngz and risk RFL giving another frivolous ban? they probably think whats the point What a fuc king joke. Surely they could put those 2 incidents together in an appeal.

Re: RD 22 | Salford Red Devils (H) : Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:33 pm  

Seth wrote:

What a fuc king joke. Surely they could put those 2 incidents together in an appeal.

The club tried the approach of comparing other incidents when appealing the Newman ban. The panel agreed and said those incidents should also have received bans.

Re: RD 22 | Salford Red Devils (H) : Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:00 pm  

Neruda wrote: https://twitter.com/SamBrocksom101/status/1557330129046626305 is this not exactly the same? nothing in either imo https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxUlWqQ9 ... uAekDwMngz and risk RFL giving another frivolous ban? they probably think whats the point There is a difference. Martin makes modest contact with a player who has just passed the ball. The Salford player makes contact on a player who never received the ball. If anything the Salford “foul” is worse IMO but agree both incidents are nothing. It’s a farce

Neruda wrote: https://twitter.com/SamBrocksom101/status/1557330129046626305 is this not exactly the same? nothing in either imo https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxUlWqQ9 ... uAekDwMngz and risk RFL giving another frivolous ban? they probably think whats the point There is a difference. Martin makes modest contact with a player who has just passed the ball. The Salford player makes contact on a player who never received the ball. If anything the Salford “foul” is worse IMO but agree both incidents are nothing. It’s a farce

Re: RD 22 | Salford Red Devils (H) : Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:07 pm  

Jack Burton wrote:

https://twitter.com/SamBrocksom101/status/1557330129046626305

Thats disgraceful to be banned for that.

Re: RD 22 | Salford Red Devils (H) : Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:18 pm  

rollin thunder wrote:

Thats disgraceful to be banned for that.

im sure the fact Martin was less than a week away from being eligible for a zero-match penalty notice, had nothing to do with the MRPs decision