Re: forrrrrrwwwaaarrdd : Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:42 am  

Easty wrote:

WE call a forward when we see a forward. Maybe it's the refs that need to be a little more strategic with the way they officiate the games.

Even the ones that are two foot back. I appreciate that most of Craven Park doesn't have the best view but a lot of Rovers fans need to get their eyes checked.

Child was a complete clown, couldn't spot a forward pass or a shoulder charge.

Re: forrrrrrwwwaaarrdd : Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:27 pm  

Top Saint wrote:

I meant that the result will not mean that you will suddenly finish in the top half of the table. All clubs are capable of one shock result, be that a win or a loss.

We have played Leeds, Wigan, Cats and you at home. 3 wins one by 30 points. Not bad when three of the teams are supposed to be "big clubs". The comments and betting odds before the season started reflected the fact we had signed 13 new players. We were seen as a team needing to gel. In addition we had a poor season last year finishing ninth. We should have beaten Leeds but fell away at the end. This was however the first time the team had played together. We played well at Warrington again only falling away in the latter stages. The Wakefield and Widnes matches are best forgotten although in the latter the difference was only four points from two needless penalties.

On the basis of your logic it could be said that our three wins represent three shock results already. However in view of your record in East Hull the win against you was probably the only winning result that was not a shock

Re: forrrrrrwwwaaarrdd : Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:21 pm  

Keiththered wrote:

We have played Leeds, Wigan, Cats and you at home. 3 wins one by 30 points. Not bad when three of the teams are supposed to be "big clubs". The comments and betting odds before the season started reflected the fact we had signed 13 new players. We were seen as a team needing to gel. In addition we had a poor season last year finishing ninth. We should have beaten Leeds but fell away at the end. This was however the first time the team had played together. We played well at Warrington again only falling away in the latter stages. The Wakefield and Widnes matches are best forgotten although in the latter the difference was only four points from two needless penalties.

On the basis of your logic it could be said that our three wins represent three shock results already. However in view of your record in East Hull the win against you was probably the only winning result that was not a shock

And lost to Widnes away. 9 away wins from 42 game iirc so far this year shows that's home form is an expectation. Don't mistake home form for ability. You can't then choose to ignore the bad performances away from home, because it doesn't suit your argument

Re: forrrrrrwwwaaarrdd : Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:47 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

And lost to Widnes away. 9 away wins from 42 game iirc so far this year shows that's home form is an expectation. Don't mistake home form for ability. You can't then choose to ignore the bad performances away from home, because it doesn't suit your argument

I was replying to a post that was trying to explain your defeat by saying "all clubs are capable of one shock result". Our results show that this is not the case. I did mention our four defeats. Why then say "You can't then choose to ignore the bad performances away from home, because it doesn't suit your argument"? Defeats do not always mean a bad performance. Wakey and Widnes were bad performances as I said best forgotten. We have been inconsistent but have only had what could be described as two bad performances. That is only one more than your supporters admit to. The defeats to Wires and Leeds were defeats by better teams but were not bad performances by us.

I can admit when we get beaten by a better team. Looking at your results since we entered Superleague we have beaten you at our ground since 2007. Overall we have been by far the better team on the day even if you have ended the season higher than us. Having beaten you the last nine times we have played in Hull over eight years maybe you play badly because that is how we make you play. It would be a poor team that lets the opposition win so consistently just because they cannot get up for the challenge.

Re: forrrrrrwwwaaarrdd : Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:02 pm  

Keiththered wrote:

I was replying to a post that was trying to explain your defeat by saying "all clubs are capable of one shock result". Our results show that this is not the case. I did mention our four defeats. Why then say "You can't then choose to ignore the bad performances away from home, because it doesn't suit your argument"? Defeats do not always mean a bad performance. Wakey and Widnes were bad performances as I said best forgotten. We have been inconsistent but have only had what could be described as two bad performances. That is only one more than your supporters admit to. The defeats to Wires and Leeds were defeats by better teams but were not bad performances by us.

I can admit when we get beaten by a better team. Looking at your results since we entered Superleague we have beaten you at our ground since 2007. Overall we have been by far the better team on the day even if you have ended the season higher than us. Having beaten you the last nine times we have played in Hull over eight years maybe you play badly because that is how we make you play. It would be a poor team that lets the opposition win so consistently just because they cannot get up for the challenge.

Mate - I'm not sure why you're on here craving validation. Facts are we dominated the game but some shocking performances, a weak ref and injuries cost us the win.

You don't need to agree with that any more than I need to agree that we lost to a good team.

9 times out of 10 a team that dominates the game as we did wins comfortably.

Re: forrrrrrwwwaaarrdd : Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:11 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

Mate - I'm not sure why you're on here craving validation. Facts are we dominated the game but some shocking performances, a weak ref and injuries cost us the win.

You don't need to agree with that any more than I need to agree that we lost to a good team.

9 times out of 10 a team that dominates the game as we did wins comfortably.

Don't fret , they'll all be too busy slagging their mates from the other side of the council estate off to come on here shortly. Interestingly I seem to remember these clowns wanting Francis Meli hung drawn and quartered a few years back for a high tackle yet I've not seen much self flagellation going on ...

Re: forrrrrrwwwaaarrdd : Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:12 pm  

No1 Saint wrote:

Don't fret , they'll all be too busy slagging their mates from the other side of the council estate off to come on here shortly. Interestingly I seem to remember these clowns wanting Francis Meli hung drawn and quartered a few years back for a high tackle yet I've not seen much self flagellation going on ...

I see Green has entered an EGP and got 1 match as a result.

So we now know we should have been playing pretty much the whole game against 12 men. Which I'm sure is great comfort to us all

Re: forrrrrrwwwaaarrdd : Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:02 pm  

FearTheVee wrote: I see Green has entered an EGP and got 1 match as a result. So we now know we should have been playing pretty much the whole game against 12 men. Which I'm sure is great comfort to us all He should have been sent off. I know how you feel http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5847

FearTheVee wrote: I see Green has entered an EGP and got 1 match as a result. So we now know we should have been playing pretty much the whole game against 12 men. Which I'm sure is great comfort to us all He should have been sent off. I know how you feel http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5847

Re: forrrrrrwwwaaarrdd : Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:21 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote: He should have been sent off. I know how you feel http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5847 He should have been shown red. Especially when it's on sky and the video ref virtually does the reffing on sky. We've had it in past and got away with it. It happens, we can just count it lucky Burns wasn't injured and out of Friday's game. As KC said, rugby is contact sport and these things happen.

Rogues Gallery wrote: He should have been sent off. I know how you feel http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5847 He should have been shown red. Especially when it's on sky and the video ref virtually does the reffing on sky. We've had it in past and got away with it. It happens, we can just count it lucky Burns wasn't injured and out of Friday's game. As KC said, rugby is contact sport and these things happen.

Re: forrrrrrwwwaaarrdd : Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:33 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote: He should have been sent off. I know how you feel http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5847

Rogues Gallery wrote: He should have been sent off. I know how you feel http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?5847