This is not politically correct, but it comes from watching rugby league for almost 50 years: 1. The media and the NRL built up this game as a grudge match, heightening tensions. They lit the fuse for the fireworks, with all players keyed up, and a crowd baying for blood. 2. In the heat of the moment a scuffle erupted. No-one should have been surprised. What was surprising was the second-phase brawl. But anyone as old as me would have seen this several times before. 3. I'll guarantee that this 'action' was the most exciting event the majority of the 22,400 people at the ground had seen for years. 4. Now comes the recriminations. The media, and blow-hard commentators will condem the 'action', pointing to it being "a bad example to the kiddies". Let me ask you: if this match was replayed next week, at a bigger venue, how many more people would turn up? The physicality of the sport is what draws people to rugby league. A fist fight is far more noble than a stiff arm, knees in the back, grapple, missile etc. 5. I know my views are old fashioned but when you have a media campaign to "bring back the biff" and a build-up that focussed on confrontation then there are double standards here. 6. What did people expect would happen when a fight broke out? Did they want their players to run away like Creagh did in the SOO - and coped a hammering for? Or did they expect their players to get involved? 7. I realise that Glenn and Blair may cop suspensions and hinder our premiership chances (it will be interesting to hear what West Tigers think of the matter, knowing that Blair is their prized recruit for 2012). But what will hinder our chances more are injuries to Wolfman, Snake, King, Hoppa etc, all of which were sustained by means other than a brawl.