Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:14 pm  

Wilderspool memories wrote:

So were the other 2. This isn't tiddlywinks you know.

What game were you watching ? Morley has always been known for the cheap shot.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:15 pm  

Disco wrote: Warrington Guardian. Shame Thaler failed to do anything about either incident. Maybe there should be a referee's competence panel too. If there was a referees competence panel then Thaler would be out on his ear.

Disco wrote: Warrington Guardian. Shame Thaler failed to do anything about either incident. Maybe there should be a referee's competence panel too. If there was a referees competence panel then Thaler would be out on his ear.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:47 pm  

in McGoldrick's defence it looked to me like side-show-bob was having a good old grab of his borbles, hence the reaction from McGoldrick. McGoldrick must be one of the easiest players to wind up in SL so i'd say Matt King knew what he was doing!

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:33 pm  

HouriganTiger wrote:

in McGoldrick's defence it looked to me like side-show-bob was having a good old grab of his borbles, hence the reaction from McGoldrick. McGoldrick must be one of the easiest players to wind up in SL so i'd say Matt King knew what he was doing!

Actually that's what I thought when I watched it too, although the camera angle was inconclusive.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:47 pm  

Bonzo wrote:

Actually that's what I thought when I watched it too, although the camera angle was inconclusive.

I thought the same too watching on TV and seeing it again twice since.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:15 pm  

carvel 1 match
morley zero match

No link as yet

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:54 pm  

poppys mum wrote: carvel 1 match morley zero match No link as yet Here you go: http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/10/02/16/RUGBYL_Warrington.html Scandalous decision. He should have walked AND got 3 matches for that.

poppys mum wrote: carvel 1 match morley zero match No link as yet Here you go: http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/10/02/16/RUGBYL_Warrington.html Scandalous decision. He should have walked AND got 3 matches for that.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:00 pm  

The Goroka Gene-ius wrote: Here you go: http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/10/02/16/RUGBYL_Warrington.html Scandalous decision. He should have walked AND got 3 matches for that. Seeing as neither TJ or the ref saw the Morley incident, he couldn't be dismissed. However, I still believe it was a deliberate and cynical attack on Sherwin. It was easier for Morley to miss him than to hit him, if you watch the incident, he only starts to raise his arm once Sherwin releases the ball. Morley's record

The Goroka Gene-ius wrote: Here you go: http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/10/02/16/RUGBYL_Warrington.html Scandalous decision. He should have walked AND got 3 matches for that. Seeing as neither TJ or the ref saw the Morley incident, he couldn't be dismissed. However, I still believe it was a deliberate and cynical attack on Sherwin. It was easier for Morley to miss him than to hit him, if you watch the incident, he only starts to raise his arm once Sherwin releases the ball. Morley's record

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:11 pm  

So it seems like the discplinary board is equally as weak as Thaler was at reffing the game on Saturday. Not a great precedence for the season ahead.

Re: Carvell & Morley face potential bans : Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:13 pm  

cod'ead wrote: Morley's record If somebody was paranoid you might think somebody who had been "cited" 16 times with 13 no charges, 1 not guilty and 2 not serious enough for a suspension might actually have an argument for being unfairly targeted by match officials.

cod'ead wrote: Morley's record If somebody was paranoid you might think somebody who had been "cited" 16 times with 13 no charges, 1 not guilty and 2 not serious enough for a suspension might actually have an argument for being unfairly targeted by match officials.