You're right. He was charged with the forearm, not the elbow. He was reported to have been dismissed for the elbow. Unable to verify that as the dismsial report is not available anywhere so I will accept on faith that the media have accurately reported that he was dismissed by ganson for leading wit hthe elbow, unless and until some evidence to the contrary can be shown.

That could be possible but upon review by the panel "reduced" to leading with the forearm which is how it appears to me on the video I've seen.

If he's your chief prosecution witness I'm surprised the case ever got to court.



As I said on the other thread yesterday, based on the actual incident from the single camera angle offered (and without the benefit of footage from any of the build up - ie the previous skirmish) it appeared to me a classic over-reaction from Ganson to send Tomkins off.



What Tomkins had used and the initially area of impact (although fairly clear on the footage) I imagine would have been difficult to determine with certainty by the match officials and ordinarily I would therefore have expected the whole incident to have been placed on report.



Ganson may have just decided it was time to take a stand. Difficult to say if that played any part in the send off decision without access to more footage but I'll put it out there as a possibility to temper the over-reaction comment.

Ganson seemed to decide on a red card after further discussion & agreement with the touch judge nearest to the incident.

Tvoc, I cannot understand why you apparently continue to defend Tomkins when his case has been heard twice by (presumably ) different, independent panels with access to more footage than any of us on here have seen who have both determined that he deliberately raised his forearm (I agree with you here that it was not his elbow) into the face of Yeaman.

I defend Tomkins on here only from the charge that he used an elbow in the incident and that when viewed in isolation it wasn't what I would consider worthy of instant dismissal when compared to several similar incidents you may witness over the course of the season. Thankfully the outcome of the game was not adversely affected by the dismissal.

Thanks, I think.



I won't measure your reaction time as you are probably in the middle of sorting your piles. Gotta love monotony.

Hemorrhoids are no laughing matter. Keith has my sympathies and I hope they clear up soon.

I wondered when someone would convert this set-up of a gag.



To be honest, i didn't expect it to be you. Kudos to the stat mule.

You mean you don't find all my posts humourous. I think you're not trying hard enough.

tvoc....I dont know who you support but you make a lot of sense. I was at the game and the facts are:



Hull came to spoil and intimidate

There were lots of sly digs in tackles and high shots from both teams

The game was heating up when Joel hit the hull player in the upper chest..the impact roaad up his chest and finished in the neck ares (worthy of a 1 game ban)

Sam - 1 game ban nailed on ..he ran 15 metres to join in the festivities (no complaints)



This thread is embarassing..all this u cant tackle a tomkins..what are you on about? Sam takes more stick than most..open your eyes and watch the games.



PS.....Hope Danny's on the mend!!

why not call them astorrids makes more sense

I can see the humour intention, it's just the end product - it's a bit of a mixed bag.