: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:30 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

You are Substander's equivilent of Mick Gledhill, I applaud you. Keep playing.

How about I get my line out and do some fishing

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:30 pm  

Rhinos Fan Pam wrote:

Just as last year, Sky start to make comment about who can stop us and we get stiffed by the officials and lose enough games to put their beloved Saints on top.
Tonight with ten mins to go and four points in it, Hemmings goes on about Sheriffe's try winning it for Bradford. With so much time left and a small margin how did he know that!!?? Because it suited Sky to have us lose and no way would we be allowed to win that's how!

It stinks and Cummins is party to it and I'm sick of it!! We get shafted all the time and we need to do something about it. I can just about take losing but I cannot take being cheated to make the league more interesting

You sausage!!! How old are you? About 4?
Have a word with yourself

[Ex-Swarcliffe Rhino]

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:48 pm  

Rhinos Fan Pam uber troll of the millenia.



I normally hate this kind of thing but jesus how many bites?

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:04 pm  

having read the first 3 pages of this (I am obviously not going to read the rest), some people are saying Webb would have been onside if he was making an attempt to get back.

What on earth is 'making an attempt' meant to mean? Legging it back? strolling back? Facing the play the ball?

I think that 'making an attempt' back is just filling in the gaps of what is an unclear rule.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:08 pm  

Where has the embarrassment that is rooster_rhino gone?

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:24 pm  

I always thought that once the ball carring player passes an offside player he 'puts him in play' but I admit I could be wrong as I've never seen anything like what happened to Webb before but the for winning try...ffs how did they give that, it had an obstruction and a knock on and I hate leeds as much as any other Saints fan but lets get things right and keep the game fair.
Also was that a knock on or a forward pass for the other try that was disallowed

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:31 pm  

St.Dave wrote:

I always thought that once the ball carring player passes an offside player he 'puts him in play' but I admit I could be wrong as I've never seen anything like what happened to Webb before but the for winning try...ffs how did they give that, it had an obstruction and a knock on and I hate leeds as much as any other Saints fan but lets get things right and keep the game fair.
Also was that a knock on or a forward pass for the other try that was disallowed

The Webb offside ruling has been discussed down to molecular level already on here. The sensible consensus is that it was a correct decision, although the flat earth brigade are still being stubborn.

The Newton "obstruction" - more like an off-the-ball barge - has likewise been debated to death. The general consensus is that it probably should have been a penalty, although at least one possible reason why not has been advanced. I'd be interested in te Cummings view on that - does he still post explanations for decisions, or did that prove too embarrassing?

The other incident was ruled a knock on - as has been discussed ad nauseum on here. Again, the sensible consensus concurs but the flat earth rearguard are proving a bugger to shift as always.

The forward pass, that was missed, came for Leeds' allowed try.

Why not go for the full set and raise the Sin-binning?

hth.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:43 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

The Webb offside ruling has been discussed down to molecular level already on here. The sensible consensus is that it was a correct decision, although the flat earth brigade are still being stubborn.

The Newton "obstruction" - more like an off-the-ball barge - has likewise been debated to death. The general consensus is that it probably should have been a penalty, although at least one possible reason why not has been advanced. I'd be interested in te Cummings view on that - does he still post explanations for decisions, or did that prove too embarrassing?

The other incident was ruled a knock on - as has been discussed ad nauseum on here. Again, the sensible consensus concurs but the flat earth rearguard are proving a bugger to shift as always.

The forward pass, that was missed, came for Leeds' allowed try.

Why not go for the full set and raise the Sin-binning?

hth.

im pleased for you bulls!! you have been in forum nomans land for so long things were a little dull(no pun intended) nice to see a few get over enemy lines.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:19 pm  

[Why not go for the full set and raise the Sin-binning?

hth.[/quote]

ok no warning from smith, explain the sin binning anybody

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:24 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

The Webb offside ruling has been discussed down to molecular level already on here. The sensible consensus is that it was a correct decision, although the flat earth brigade are still being stubborn.

The Newton "obstruction" - more like an off-the-ball barge - has likewise been debated to death. The general consensus is that it probably should have been a penalty, although at least one possible reason why not has been advanced. I'd be interested in te Cummings view on that - does he still post explanations for decisions, or did that prove too embarrassing?

The other incident was ruled a knock on - as has been discussed ad nauseum on here. Again, the sensible consensus concurs but the flat earth rearguard are proving a bugger to shift as always.

The forward pass, that was missed, came for Leeds' allowed try.

Why not go for the full set and raise the Sin-binning?

hth.

and whilst your about it don't forget the Ryan Hall try that was disalllowed.