Re: bentham : Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:41 pm  

Seriously?

The obstruction decision you have a point on, but as the picture "being tweeted by journos" shows, the ball is clearly held up. THAT was absolutely the right decision. It never got to ground. Having said that, I was expecting "Benefit of the doubt" to go up on the screen, even though it would have been blatantly wrong.

As for whinging, how about Mr Emmit? Dummy spitting worse than Graham on show tonight.

Bentham made some right howlers of decisions tonight, but he got more wrong against Wigan than he did against Castleford. Overall, he wasn't too bad.

That Davies is dirty, isn't he... he'll be facing the disciplinary for about 3 different things.

Re: bentham : Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:47 pm  

As for whinging, how about Mr Emmit? Dummy spitting worse than Graham on show tonight

i saw jake having a laugh with the opposition players not whinging you need to take those cherry and white glasses off and you should know a whinger when you see one

as for Davies doubt he will get called up may get a caution but i would be surprised if he gets that

Re: bentham : Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:52 pm  

Fishsta wrote:

That Tompkins is dirty, isn't he... he'll be facing the disciplinary for about 3 different things.

Typo corrected

Re: bentham : Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:55 pm  

Fishsta wrote:

Seriously?

The obstruction decision you have a point on, but as the picture "being tweeted by journos" shows, the ball is clearly held up. THAT was absolutely the right decision. It never got to ground. Having said that, I was expecting "Benefit of the doubt" to go up on the screen, even though it would have been blatantly wrong.

As for whinging, how about Mr Emmit? Dummy spitting worse than Graham on show tonight.

Bentham made some right howlers of decisions tonight, but he got more wrong against Wigan than he did against Castleford. Overall, he wasn't too bad.

That Davies is dirty, isn't he... he'll be facing the disciplinary for about 3 different things.

I would disagree, dont actually think that picture shows anything conclusively. I think the ball is down (maybe im wrong), it wasn't given so it doesn't really matter now.

Emmit does whinge a bit but he's far from the worst, he has been pulled up about this before. Put in a solid shift tonight until his injury.

I wouldn't call Davies a dirty player, i'd call it commitment. He did make a couple of bad tackles (if they can be called that) but he's took a big step up in class tonight and done well, plays with a bit of passion and thats what we like to see at Cas.

Re: bentham : Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:58 pm  

The picture only shows it at that split second time, where are the ones leadoing up to it ? , The wigan players were trying to pull him back all the time so this clip could have been at that point, its inconclusive and should have been given the benefit,

Re: bentham : Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:05 pm  

yorkylad wrote:

I would disagree, dont actually think that picture shows anything conclusively. I think the ball is down (maybe im wrong), it wasn't given so it doesn't really matter now.

Emmit does whinge a bit but he's far from the worst, he has been pulled up about this before. Put in a solid shift tonight until his injury.

I wouldn't call Davies a dirty player, i'd call it commitment. He did make a couple of bad tackles (if they can be called that) but he's took a big step up in class tonight and done well, plays with a bit of passion and thats what we like to see at Cas.

Let's quote the INTELLIGENT reply first.

And how about the leg underneath the ball? The distance between ball and ground? It's CLEARLY not a try.

The best bit (or the worst depending how you look at it) of Emmit's whinging was when he spat towards Bentham and CLEARLY called him... well, the swear filter would block it out, so there's no point. And he was clearly getting too wound up towards the end, as could be seen from the number of penalties he gave away.

In defence, he was one of the biggest dangers, since we had slippyitis (I realise "itis" refers to swelling, not an actually condition, before someone decides to try and pull me up on that), his big hits were both frightening from our perspective, and clearly gave Cas the boot up the backside, the one after the kickoff after we'd scored our last of the quickfire tries as a prime case in point. Davies should learn from Emmit, THAT was how to put big hits in, not swinging arms around the head.

tropical1 wrote:

i saw jake having a laugh with the opposition players not whinging you need to take those cherry and white glasses off and you should know a whinger when you see one

as for Davies doubt he will get called up may get a caution but i would be surprised if he gets that

You clearly missed the second half of the match if the ball strip called as a knock-on is the only thing you can remember Emmit doing. Well done for providing evidence on the Bentham bias towards Cas, though. Top man.

Speedy wrote:

Typo corrected

With another typo?? Give that man a medal! And maybe a copy of the teamsheet so he can spell Tomkins' name correctly. Nice one, Rodney.

Incidentally, which one? And what did he supposedly do?

Re: bentham : Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:26 pm  

Fishsta wrote:

Let's quote the INTELLIGENT reply first.

And how about the leg underneath the ball? The distance between ball and ground? It's CLEARLY not a try.

The best bit (or the worst depending how you look at it) of Emmit's whinging was when he spat towards Bentham and CLEARLY called him... well, the swear filter would block it out, so there's no point. And he was clearly getting too wound up towards the end, as could be seen from the number of penalties he gave away.

In defence, he was one of the biggest dangers, since we had slippyitis (I realise "itis" refers to swelling, not an actually condition, before someone decides to try and pull me up on that), his big hits were both frightening from our perspective, and clearly gave Cas the boot up the backside, the one after the kickoff after we'd scored our last of the quickfire tries as a prime case in point. Davies should learn from Emmit, THAT was how to put big hits in, not swinging arms around the head.

You clearly missed the second half of the match if the ball strip called as a knock-on is the only thing you can remember Emmit doing. Well done for providing evidence on the Bentham bias towards Cas, though. Top man.

With another typo?? Give that man a medal! And maybe a copy of the teamsheet so he can spell Tomkins' name correctly. Nice one, Rodney.

Incidentally, which one? And what did he supposedly do?

What a sad act you are, try listening to the game and read the comments on VT, ie "Lots of undue pressure on a joint there from Lima on Emmit, yet again. But did anyone notice Sam Tomkins telling him to do it as they were playing the ball. Shocking.", T!T

Re: bentham : Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:34 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

http://yfrog.com/kfq0rpyj

angle shown once...

Been Tweeted by all the RL journos right now.

That for me shows that the ball is not on the floor Massive fail.

Re: bentham : Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:02 pm  

Speedy wrote:

What a sad act you are, try listening to the game and read the comments on VT, ie "Lots of undue pressure on a joint there from Lima on Emmit, yet again. But did anyone notice Sam Tomkins telling him to do it as they were playing the ball. Shocking.", T!T

Lesson 1, "Learn from your mistakes" was obviously a success.

Lesson 2, "Try and reply with intelligence and facts rather than insults and bias" is next. Looks like a bit of a task.

Re: bentham : Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:30 am  

Fishsta wrote:

<snip>

You clearly have some sort of problem with Jake Emmitt...

Cheshire Tiger wrote:

If there is doubt, then "benefit of the doubt" has to be the way. Or why have the rule? Its not "benefit of guess!"

Wigan were clearly given benefit of the doubt with their 'obstruction' try. It was a 50/50 for me because there was still a defender in a position to make a tackle and halt the move; however the dummy runner prevented our defence from sliding together to cover the wing and it could just as easily have been disallowed for that.

With the Ferres effort, there wasn't any point in the replays where you could conclusively say that the ball wasn't grounded; that is to say you could clearly see something between the ball and the grass and prove the ball had not been grounded. That considered, it should've been given as benefit of the doubt. Even McGuire seemed surprised it had been disallowed.

I really do get the feeling that Bentham has something against us this season and he's been pretty consistent in that from the very beginning.