Well I've checked the Disciplinary findings and the actual truth is there were seven incidents involving Huddersfield players and the findings were as follows:
Four incidents were not penalised at the time and the board found in each incident that was correct and no sanction was required.
Two incidents, separate to the sin binning, were penalised at the time and in both cases the penalty was deemed correct and sufficient punishment.
In the case of the sin binning the board found after studying the incident, and I'll quote the board's findings to avoid any further confusion in Yorkshire, "Sin Bin sufficient" which suggests that the level of foul play deserved the sin binning bit no further penalty.
I do wonder what report you have been reading; the Huddersfield Examiner?
Like the Grand Final when some of us tried to blame that defeat on the ref not sin binning Tomkins.
Also Hangerman, are you so named after the Huddersfield legend Dean Hanger?
Yes i am. I know he didn't go so well for you guys, but some of my best memories are still of Hanger scoring length of the field tries from acting half for Huddersfield. He was ahead of his time with his trademark 'scoot'.
Login
Register
