Re: J. Acton : Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:41 pm  

Hudd-Shay wrote:

The blokes a thug although to be fair to him I had him down as Fax's 3rd best player today. Lol!

You haven't got clue which surprises me, if you are a Fax follower you would certainly know a thug or two when you see one!
Feel free to voice your opinion of him however, his Leigh critics (and there some) would not describe him has a Thug!

Re: J. Acton : Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:02 pm  

JAMIE ACTON - LEIGH
SHEFFIELD V LEIGH - CHAMPIONSHIP
DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF :
Player approaches from the side and makes contact with opponent on the thigh. Does not use unreasonable force to drive through the tackle forcing the joint against the natural range of movement. Sin Bin Sufficient.

DECISION:
No charge

INCIDENT:
Dangerous Contact in the 66th minute (Moran)

Re: J. Acton : Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:04 pm  

Cokey wrote:

JAMIE ACTON - LEIGH
SHEFFIELD V LEIGH - CHAMPIONSHIP
DETAILS OF CHARGE / REASON FOR NF :
Player approaches from the side and makes contact with opponent on the thigh. Does not use unreasonable force to drive through the tackle forcing the joint against the natural range of movement. Sin Bin Sufficient.

DECISION:
No charge

INCIDENT:
Dangerous Contact in the 66th minute (Moran)

Fair enough. It didn't look great from a distance, but common sense has prevailed. Can't say I'm a great fan of that type of tackle though.

With the arrival of Ryan Bailey, the refs are going to have their work cut out to decide on who the 'villain' is!!

Re: J. Acton : Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:01 am  

Looks like Jamie shouldn't have even been Sin-Binned, if he didn't use excessive force to make the Tackle?

Re: J. Acton : Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:09 am  

It's still dangerous contact which in the eyes of the touch judge or ref warranted a sin bin. Hence sin bin sufficient.

Now if the ref had put it on report, that could of been a fine/suspension. But they have taken into account he was sin binned.

Either way it's still dangerous contact.

Re: J. Acton : Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:21 am  

atomic wrote:

It's still dangerous contact which in the eyes of the touch judge or ref warranted a sin bin. Hence sin bin sufficient.

Now if the ref had put it on report, that could of been a fine/suspension. But they have taken into account he was sin binned.

Either way it's still dangerous contact.

I agree.It wasn't the first time during the game he went in like that,the others were timed a bit better, and not as dangerous,but he must be a little more careful.

Re: J. Acton : Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:45 pm  

Cokey wrote:

I agree.It wasn't the first time during the game he went in like that,the others were timed a bit better, and not as dangerous,but he must be a little more careful.

Very difficult to 'be careful' when you are making a high number of high-collision tackles. Although the other 33 players consistently seem to manage it!

Re: J. Acton : Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:03 pm  

Alan wrote:

Very difficult to 'be careful' when you are making a high number of high-collision tackles. Although the other 33 players consistently seem to manage it!

It's just that he was the 3rd tackler coming in. No doubt the officials will have their beady eyes on him.

Re: J. Acton : Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:03 pm  

Cokey wrote:

It's just that he was the 3rd tackler coming in. No doubt the officials will have their beady eyes on him.

They'll not know which way to look now, with Ryan Bailey in the mix!

Re: J. Acton : Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:25 pm  

Alan wrote:

They'll not know which way to look now, with Ryan Bailey in the mix!

Ha ha, yer reet theer Al.