straight red - easy call for several reasons :



1 he was 2nd man in so had time to set himself up

2 eric wasnt falling, the position of his head never changed

3 it doesnt matter which part of your upper body you use, a straight hit to the head is a no-no



it was so clear on the video replay that i cant see how he can avoid a ban

why didnt they look at it on the screen? or get advice from the video ref?

Thats is what I didnt understand and it makes a mockery of previous decisions. In recent weeks players have been sent off after listening to the video ref. Last night the ref didnt even ask the video ref and simply but it on report as he said he didnt see it. No consistency from the referees once again.

The inconsistency of refs this past 2 seasons is getting worse every game.... Something needs to be done about their standards.they are spoiling to many games with their crazy decisions

I don't like this type of "tackle", and this is my reason. I think its cowardly.



You are only in any real danger of injuring your opponent, not yourself, because you don't put your head into the tackle. I'm sure people can cite instancies when the tackler has been injured, and players saying "its part of the game". But after one of these tackles which has been "Mistimed", its almost always the tackled person on the deck, and normally with a head injury. The tackle being talked about last night deserves to be punished because the arm was away from the body when it made contact. Where does a "shoulder charge" stop, and a "swinging arm" start?

You say that, but apparently the judiciary don't use the Sky footage and only use the video taken by the club/stadium cameras. Ridiculous if true.

Same scenario but Hock is the culprit, what happens?

Red card 3 match ban.

It's a conspiracy!



Should have been red, 2 match ban.

in which case i hope the club camera was filming the replay on the big screen !!

I see what you mean, but is there not an argument to say the way they do it means it's more consistent across the 7 games played that weekend?

Consistency and Rugby League decisions are not good bedfellows. Two of the seven games will have the"benefit" of the video referee, the other five will not.

I have had enough of putting things on report. It would have been better for both Hull and us if Westerman got sent off as the sending off is usually taking into account when the dish out the sentences. For me its 2 game ban but if he got sent off that should have been taken into account. Listening to Child on tv during the re run on SKY he says he has seen the contact but does not know what part of Westerman body made contact.



That is lies he saw nothing at all wrong as he was going to his position for the next play the ball when he noticed Eric was knocked out. He then sees it on TV screen when we react to it and then cops it totally out as not to look like a muppet and says he has seen the initial contact but not the part of his body Westerman used. Reason i believe this is i was virtually in line with the hit in row DD East stand and i noticed Childs ran to his position for the next BTP. When you listen to the coverage on SKY he makes it up so he can give us a penalty and safe face. I was in line of the hit by Westerman and at normal speed i saw nothing wrong with it at first but after seeing it on the screen its an obvious red card. So how could Child give a penalty and not send him off when its bloody obvious he missed it and only gave the decision after seeing it on the screen.

Same scenario, culprit Ryan Bailey, what happens?

Eddie Hemmings made a stupid remark on sky when this happened, something along the lines of



"Luauki deserves everything he gets for running in like that"