: Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:14 pm  

ST_CONROY wrote:

So you are really suggesting Ian Smith is a bent ref. Nothing to do with giving what he saw?

I'm not saying every decision he made was correct.

I look forward to reading about Smith not being a ref in the next few weeks. If he is cheating then surely the club will complain? other team? the fans? and he will be remove from being a ref.



But it is true.



Where have I said that?



I figured all of those could be encompassed in the phrase "taking the wrong option".



In your opinion.

Ignore the actually arguement i have put forward, revert to the typecast.

I actually thought Longy was our best player last night, apart from not taking the drop goal near the end.

The club should complain, as Anderson did last year. Complaining is pointless when no matter what is said, Cummings just defends the referees. I never said he was bent, he is generally a shocking referee, and as others have said, is not SL Standard, and i've never once seen him have a good game. Cummings must have seen a problem with Smith last year to allow Anderson to dictate wether we have him or not, then Anderson leaves and we have him twice in three games. Coincidence?

It might be true that the referee doesn't miss tackles, but like i said, if he constantly penalties a team then eventually they will crack and tire, not because of bad defence, but purely because of the amount of defence they have had to do, which is the referees fault.

You singled out Long for taking the wrong option, yet you failed to point out several other players who made errors through-out the game, that was the point i was making.

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:05 pm  

General Zod. wrote:

Have a look at the 2008 SL table - idiot!

that was so last season though

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:27 pm  

saint billy wrote:

The club should complain, as Anderson did last year. Complaining is pointless when no matter what is said, Cummings just defends the referees. I never said he was bent, he is generally a shocking referee, and as others have said, is not SL Standard, and i've never once seen him have a good game. Cummings must have seen a problem with Smith last year to allow Anderson to dictate wether we have him or not, then Anderson leaves and we have him twice in three games. Coincidence?

It might be true that the referee doesn't miss tackles, but like i said, if he constantly penalties a team then eventually they will crack and tire, not because of bad defence, but purely because of the amount of defence they have had to do, which is the referees fault.

You singled out Long for taking the wrong option, yet you failed to point out several other players who made errors through-out the game, that was the point i was making.

So which player in particular do you think Smith dilikes enough to start imagining infringements and penalising his team for them?

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:35 pm  

EL CAMO wrote:

So which player in particular do you think Smith dilikes enough to start imagining infringements and penalising his team for them?

I don't think its a particular player, i think its more along the lines of the club as a whole.

: Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:37 pm  

saint billy wrote:

I don't think its a particular player, i think its more along the lines of the club as a whole.

Well then he balances out the fact that Ganson is a born and bred Saints fan doesn't he.

Re: Ian Smith - Normal Service Resumed : Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:00 pm  

Jonesy's a Legend wrote:

smith hasn't officiated at that many of saints' games though has he,since anderson banished him elsewhere on gameday?

4 games last year, 2 out of our first 3 games this year. Lost 4 games out of 6, 2 games were with controverisial circumstances hence no more games afters Andersons spat.

Having watched rugby league for a long, long time, worse referee have seen for a long, long time. Some of his decision making he just makes up in his head.

: Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:30 am  

General Zod. wrote:

The disallowed try was for a pass that was a mile forward - you can't expect to get away with those types of passes forever.


And as for deserving a draw; the fact is you opted to go for a drop goal with 10mins to go instead of going for the kill which shows your side lacked bottle in the face of a defence who fronted up.

Saints can play some skillful RL at times but in any game were the going gets tough (Wire aside), your team goes into it's shell resulting in weak options like dropping a goal with 10mins to go - in harsh terms this is the choice of a team full of "flat-track bullies".

The return fixture promises to be another great match but whether both teams have their respective players missing from last night or both suffer further injuries, I fully expect another hard fought Rovers victory whilst you have as poor a back 3 as Wellens, Gardner and Armstrong.

I was behind the sticks at the other end, my gripe is that the touch judge seemed to wait for the try to be scored before getting involved. Suspicious indeed but I can't comment on whether it was forward or not.

We did deserve a draw, end of story, taking a drop as early as 10 to go is not something we normally do but let's face it you never got close to getting over after it did you?????? Not even close once. The penalty won you the game.

The decision on the first drop was not a bad one, it underlined the belief in our defence to hold you out which it did. It was only breached three times, one with a disputed try that hardly anyone can confirm was legit and came off a hopeful punt down the field and another from a high kick. You had loads of territory and possession and couldn't turn it into the tries to reflect that. Our defence is still awesome.

I don't know how you can say we go into our shell in tough games, when we have lost less matches in 5 years than anyone else. Most of those games have been tough and in plenty we've had the ringcraft to win them from losing positions. You're simply talking rubbish about that.

It just wasn't our night in attack with a patched up side, and Rovers played very well indeed. They're the simple facts. I'd have been happy with a draw.

In my opinion we bombed the draw and gave it away. We could and should have tied it up with a 2nd drop with 2 mins to go. We could not have been any closer and under the sticks as well, and Long even dropped back a bit for prime position but the ball was moved wide instead. BAD OPTION INDEED.

You expect your return victory by the way and enjoy this one as we're still a superior side to Rovers. A one point win and suddenly you expect to turn us over, that is arrogant, even if you end up being correct.

: Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:21 am  

General Zod. wrote:

The disallowed try was for a pass that was a mile forward - you can't expect to get away with those types of passes forever.

And as for deserving a draw; the fact is you opted to go for a drop goal with 10mins to go instead of going for the kill which shows your side lacked bottle in the face of a defence who fronted up.

Saints can play some skillful RL at times but in any game were the going gets tough (Wire aside), your team goes into it's shell resulting in weak options like dropping a goal with 10mins to go - in harsh terms this is the choice of a team full of "flat-track bullies".

The return fixture promises to be another great match but whether both teams have their respective players missing from last night or both suffer further injuries, I fully expect another hard fought Rovers victory whilst you have as poor a back 3 as Wellens, Gardner and Armstrong.

You really are a pr1ck.

: Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:40 am  

Big Dave Fairleigh wrote:

I was behind the sticks at the other end, my gripe is that the touch judge seemed to wait for the try to be scored before getting involved. Suspicious indeed but I can't comment on whether it was forward or not.

Well it certainly was mate - watch the SL show today.

Big Dave Fairleigh wrote:

We did deserve a draw, end of story, taking a drop as early as 10 to go is not something we normally do but let's face it you never got close to getting over after it did you?????? Not even close once. The penalty won you the game.

No you didn't and besides, the penalty was conceeded as Graham was spent and was struggling to get back - we were looking good for a try at that point anyway.

Big Dave Fairleigh wrote:

The decision on the first drop was not a bad one, it underlined the belief in our defence to hold you out which it did.

Not at all, against a team like Leeds they would have gone for the try all the way - as would ourselves. It outlined your team's lack of bottle.

Big Dave Fairleigh wrote:

It was only breached three times, one with a disputed try that hardly anyone can confirm was legit and came off a hopeful punt down the field and another from a high kick. You had loads of territory and possession and couldn't turn it into the tries to reflect that. Our defence is still awesome.

You really think any team would kick from the scrum on the first tackle - think about it... It was a planned moved to exploit Gardner's distinct lack of pace and it paid off with a deserved try.

Big Dave Fairleigh wrote:

I don't know how you can say we go into our shell in tough games, when we have lost less matches in 5 years than anyone else. Most of those games have been tough and in plenty we've had the ringcraft to win them from losing positions. You're simply talking rubbish about that.

Not really, as like in the Grand Final, unless Gidley gets your team a few tries up, your team doesn't front up well enough and it is that reason you are no longer SL Champions.

Big Dave Fairleigh wrote:

It just wasn't our night in attack with a patched up side, and Rovers played very well indeed. They're the simple facts. I'd have been happy with a draw.

A patched up side? We were missing Vella, Cooke, Gene & Colbon yet injuries are a fact of RL and it maybe it highlighted your lack of strength in depth?

Big Dave Fairleigh wrote:

In my opinion we bombed the draw and gave it away. We could and should have tied it up with a 2nd drop with 2 mins to go. We could not have been any closer and under the sticks as well, and Long even dropped back a bit for prime position but the ball was moved wide instead. BAD OPTION INDEED.

Fair point.

Big Dave Fairleigh wrote:

You expect your return victory by the way and enjoy this one as we're still a superior side to Rovers. A one point win and suddenly you expect to turn us over, that is arrogant, even if you end up being correct.

Under Justin Morgan we are proving a team and club with sustainable improvement and in Saints; whilst I expect you to finish top 2, in the long term I think you will struggle to maintain that due to a lack of strength in depth and the retirement of some irreplaceble, world class players in Gidley & Cunningham etc.

: Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:44 am  

Don Brennan wrote:

You really are a pr1ck.

Great input...