Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:23 am  

mdean wrote:

I can't read through all 14 pages of this thread, but I just watched boots n' all and I thought Cull got it bang on.... When we were in the ascendancy we made four mistakes in good ball positions and twice kicked out on the full and one kick was charged down IN THE FIRST HALF. If we had scored a converted try on any of those red-zone positions we would not have lost.

There is no conspiracy, ask yourself if that last try had been scored by one of our own players striving to get a win at the death, would you see it differently, I know I would. We lost that game, blew it, bombed it. Hull KR played average and we were worse on the day.

He's right, it wasn't Steve Ganson who made those mistakes. It was Cas.

It also wasn't Steve Ganson who got Cullen sacked from Warrington. It was Cas

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:02 pm  

Gazemous wrote:

It also wasn't Steve Ganson who got Cullen sacked from Warrington. It was Cas

I forgot that bit! maybe everyone is right it is a conspiracy and he is a hater as well! I was wrong.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:44 pm  

Attacking side gets the benefit of the doubt at the end of the day and it cant be classed as a knock on because while the ball was in the air Watts touched and carried on touching the ball until it was grounded. Yes it was minimal, I am pretty sure Watts knew very little about it and like most people the rule needs solidifying so that it is never to create this debate again.

I've watched the game twice since last week and on countless times both sides play of the ball was the same as how Watts did for the Murrell try. However if this had been picked up the penalty would still surely have gone to Rovers for not more than one Cas player being onside to the laws of the game. The first offence was the offside then the incorrect play the ball.

Personally I wouldnt have given one Ainscough try due to a forward pass but the one just before half time I think too should have been benefit of the doubt due to not being able to see the line and the ruling states anywhere above the waiste and below the neck is classed as a try if connected with the ball on or over the line.

The game now is about milimeters not inches and with deeper annalysis of the game due to the video ref and more officials we are possibly becomming too critical. If the game was not on TV I doubt the Watts try would have been given, I do think Ainscough would have been given 4 tries. However it was on TV, Ganson went by the laws of the game and it turned out to be the winner that caused major debate.

Cas in some ways just need to settle themselves down and do what they do well more often like taking the ball accross pitch and score out wide. It works regularly so why try and muscle it down the middle?

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:09 pm  

nick hkr wrote:

Cas in some ways just need to settle themselves down and do what they do well more often like taking the ball accross pitch and score out wide. It works regularly so why try and muscle it down the middle?

Possibly due to the fact that our conversion rate from out wide isn't that great and arguably was an additional factor in our defeat last Saturday.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:07 pm  

mdean wrote:

There is no conspiracy, ask yourself if that last try had been scored by one of our own players striving to get a win at the death, would you see it differently, I know I would. We lost that game, blew it, bombed it. Hull KR played average and we were worse on the day.

No because winning CHEAP like that is embarrassing and I'd hate to win a game like that and Morgan saying it was character not luck just shows how classless he is.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:43 pm  

Gaslight wrote:

No because winning CHEAP like that is embarrassing and I'd hate to win a game like that and Morgan saying it was character not luck just shows how classless he is.

I'd rather win cheap and classless than lose galantly I am afraid - whether we like it or not it is a results business, not a popularity contest.

I suspect you're post was tongue in cheek.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:00 pm  

mdean wrote:

I'd rather win cheap and classless than lose galantly I am afraid - whether we like it or not it is a results business, not a popularity contest.

I suspect you're post was tongue in cheek.

Trust me, it wasn't.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:24 pm  

ParanoidAndroid wrote:

Trust me, it wasn't.

Nope, not at all I'd rather lose then win cheap in all honesty.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:51 am  

mdean wrote:

I forgot that bit! maybe everyone is right it is a conspiracy and he is a hater as well! I was wrong.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:56 am  

Gaslight wrote:

Nope, not at all I'd rather lose then win cheap in all honesty.

I wouldn't worry, we never seem to be lucky enough to get cheap wins anyway.