: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:29 pm  

Duke Eddington wrote:

The penalty was given for smith initially lashing out. Nothing to do with retalliation or anything else.

No matter what it was given for it was still an awful decision.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:34 pm  

CouerdeLion wrote:

Gibson needs more game time to enable a complete assesment of him. He can't be written off after a couple of poor performances. The only way he will progress is to keep lpaying at a high standard. Not every youngster is going to be an instant world beater.

All what you've put could apply to Watkins but he wasn't selected. Gibson is 22 (I think people forget this) and he's the finished article. It's a pity the finished article has been hampered by injuries but he was never big enough, fast enough or explosive enough even before his injuries and he's simply not going to make it at a top club. Sorry but that's the way it is unfortunately.

He's playing (I guess) because he's the best Leeds have currently available to them. As long as GH can keep counting that unspent cap money someone will be happy.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:36 pm  

Does nobody think the problem's we have against Saints might not rest with the players?

We were second best in every department today.

I am waiting for Bluey to do a number on Saints like Smith did throughout 2007. He hasn't come within coooeee.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:38 pm  

UnleashKeith Carnegie wrote:

No matter what it was given for it was still an awful decision.

No, technically it was correct, as was the decision today when Wilkin was needlessly attacked by Ablett.

Nice win for Saints on the penalty count today I suspect, which must irk Bluey after he promised a Leeds win on that score in the week.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:38 pm  

G1 wrote: Does nobody think the problem's we have against Saints might not rest with the players? We were second best in every department today. I am waiting for Bluey to do a number on Saints like Smith did throughout 2007. He hasn't come within coooeee. Someone else alluded to the possibility here and he's mentioned the record before now also. Duke Eddington wrote: The penalty was given for smith initially lashing out. Nothing to do with retalliation or anything else. Correct, Smith was deemed the instigator and Gilmore the retaliator. Truth is the instigator was actually whichever player was giving Smith the facial (either Wilkin or Gilmore) that caused him to react but that was missed by the officials.

G1 wrote: Does nobody think the problem's we have against Saints might not rest with the players? We were second best in every department today. I am waiting for Bluey to do a number on Saints like Smith did throughout 2007. He hasn't come within coooeee. Someone else alluded to the possibility here and he's mentioned the record before now also. Duke Eddington wrote: The penalty was given for smith initially lashing out. Nothing to do with retalliation or anything else. Correct, Smith was deemed the instigator and Gilmore the retaliator. Truth is the instigator was actually whichever player was giving Smith the facial (either Wilkin or Gilmore) that caused him to react but that was missed by the officials.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:46 pm  

tvoc wrote: Someone else alluded to the possibility here and he's mentioned the record before now also. Correct, Smith was deemed the instigator and Gilmore the retaliator. Truth is the instigator was acually whichever player was giving Smith the facial (either Wilkin or Gilmore) that caused him to react but that was missed by the officials. I would let Jon Wilkin give me a facial anyday after that performance today.

tvoc wrote: Someone else alluded to the possibility here and he's mentioned the record before now also. Correct, Smith was deemed the instigator and Gilmore the retaliator. Truth is the instigator was acually whichever player was giving Smith the facial (either Wilkin or Gilmore) that caused him to react but that was missed by the officials. I would let Jon Wilkin give me a facial anyday after that performance today.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:49 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I would let Jon Wilkin give me a facial anyday after that performance today.

I bet you would as it might wipe some of that egg away after your premature 'Walters out' thread.

: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:52 pm  

tvoc wrote:

I bet you would as it might wipe some of that egg away after your premature 'Walters out' thread.

Nothing premature about it. Bradford just turned out to be worserer than Catalans, if that's possible.

We'll see I'm right when Leeds declare at 100/0 in the upcoming derby.

: Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:15 am  

If you say so.

Saddened! wrote:

I always like that Kevin Walters as a player. He always has a lot of ideas, seems to have rubbed off onto his coaching.

(Which idiot started this thread?)

Still think they will run out of puff though, but would be delightful to see them win this.

Shocking defending again.

You were right about the defending though.

Re: My thoughts on today : Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:10 am  

EmmaMur01 wrote:

All you ask for is a level playing field. The ref didn't give us that today. How the hell he got this match I will never know.

Matt23 wrote:

Saints were the better side so there's not much point complaining about the ref.

EmmaMur01 wrote:

Who is complaining about the ref??