: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:09 pm  

Mick Gledhill wrote:

Yet again the referee costs us the game

how the hell do you know? you couldnt be bothered attending - wally!

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:54 pm  

mat wrote:

how the hell do you know? you couldnt be bothered attending - wally!

Poor old Mick he really does you lot no favours.

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:01 pm  

According to Radio Leeds you were going well at 14-4 when you had that"try" disallowed.
twenty minutes later you are in trouble 28-14 down instead of 20-4 up.
Did you drop off the pace or did Saints move up a gear?
Should be a good game this Friday.

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:02 pm  

chapylad wrote:

According to Radio Leeds you were going well at 14-4 when you had that"try" disallowed.
twenty minutes later you are in trouble 28-14 down instead of 20-4 up.
Did you drop off the pace or did Saints move up a gear?Should be a good game this Friday.

A bit of both.

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:12 pm  

Mick Gledhill wrote:

Yet again the referee costs us the game

He ripped the ball out of Menzies' hands twice in as many minutes.

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:24 pm  

cunnie6 wrote:

According to the Saints players, the ball was stolen by one of the Bradford players as Roby went over, as the rules stated if it is stolen in the act of scoring it is a penalty try, that is what the IGJ said.He was only three feet away from it. You seem to only mention Kyle badly timed tackle, but, forget to mention the swinging of that thug Newton, followed by the Halley shot on Maurie. Amazingly, Thaler did not do anything, because, Maurie did not do a swan dive and rollover pretending to be injured, he got up and played the ball.

I assume you are a "comedy" poster. Very good.

: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:16 pm  

Right then, lets have a bash at this one.

The one thing that was the key factor was Fa'asavalu's (I'm not even going to attempt to spell his name correctly, that'll do) spells, which turned the game to a certain extent. He was magnificent, a joy to watch even from a Bulls perspective!

However, I think the Bulls had a couple of good chances to put that game to bed. I certainly didn't agree with taking the 2, we had all the momentum and Saints were on the back foot. Also, Deacon's "try", of which I'm not sure why it was disallowed (haven't read the previous posts on here), but that could have certainly done some damage psychologically to be that far in front.

Saints had two very good spells, and justified for me why they're the best team in the comp. I personally aren't too downhearted from that, and look forward to Leeds on Friday. Kudos to Scruton, who had his best game for the Bulls I thought. Non-Kudos to Deacon, who again looked lost, and justified our need to sign Wing, or any other 7 that looks capable of leading a line and backing up the work our ever consistent players like Lynch and Menzies do week in, week out.

Keep the faith!

P.S - Eastwood's much criticized hit on Jeffries was perfectly legal in my opinion

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:40 am  

AaronBull wrote:

Right then, lets have a bash at this one.

The one thing that was the key factor was Fa'asavalu's (I'm not even going to attempt to spell his name correctly, that'll do) spells, which turned the game to a certain extent. He was magnificent, a joy to watch even from a Bulls perspective!

However, I think the Bulls had a couple of good chances to put that game to bed. I certainly didn't agree with taking the 2, we had all the momentum and Saints were on the back foot. Also, Deacon's "try", of which I'm not sure why it was disallowed (haven't read the previous posts on here), but that could have certainly done some damage psychologically to be that far in front.

Saints had two very good spells, and justified for me why they're the best team in the comp. I personally aren't too downhearted from that, and look forward to Leeds on Friday. Kudos to Scruton, who had his best game for the Bulls I thought. Non-Kudos to Deacon, who again looked lost, and justified our need to sign Wing, or any other 7 that looks capable of leading a line and backing up the work our ever consistent players like Lynch and Menzies do week in, week out.

Keep the faith!

P.S - Eastwood's much criticized hit on Jeffries was perfectly legal in my opinion

Firstly the bradford no try, what i assumed was the decision is that whoever competed with wellens was the one who got the first touch, it went forwards and hence was a knock on ... whether this was the case i dont know

As for roby's try, it was directly in front of me, and he definately a try, the ball was bounced after it was put down which was why it looked like it was a knock on i suppose

The in goal touch judge's were far closer than me on both occasions so i suppose ill have to trust in there decision ... the fact they both came up for saints

Im with Aaronbull in that i thought eastmond came over the shoulder, may of ended up around the neck and a penalty, but not the henious crime some bradford fans seem to paint out

I cant really think of any real incidents where the referee got it particularly wrong, but i think the bradford fans should be asking themselves questions such as "why with 4 sets on the saints line we could only come away with 2 points?" and "Why a team missing there number 7 (who is as influential as saun long (love him or hate him)) can still come to odsal and score 8 tries?"

I also thought deacon played really well for you guys especially in the first 20 of each half, along with menzies who was running rings around us at one point

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:49 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Firstly the bradford no try, what i assumed was the decision is that whoever competed with wellens was the one who got the first touch, it went forwards and hence was a knock on ... whether this was the case i dont know

As for roby's try, it was directly in front of me, and he definately a try, the ball was bounced after it was put down which was why it looked like it was a knock on i suppose

The in goal touch judge's were far closer than me on both occasions so i suppose ill have to trust in there decision ... the fact they both came up for saints

Im with Aaronbull in that i thought eastmond came over the shoulder, may of ended up around the neck and a penalty, but not the henious crime some bradford fans seem to paint out

I cant really think of any real incidents where the referee got it particularly wrong, but i think the bradford fans should be asking themselves questions such as "why with 4 sets on the saints line we could only come away with 2 points?" and "Why a team missing there number 7 (who is as influential as saun long (love him or hate him)) can still come to odsal and score 8 tries?"

I also thought deacon played really well for you guys especially in the first 20 of each half, along with menzies who was running rings around us at one point

More interested in asking why a team can be continually pulled for high tackles and no further action taken. It's much easier to defend when you know you can get away with murder.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:56 am  

rugbyreddog wrote:

More interested in asking why a team can be continually pulled for high tackles and no further action taken. It's much easier to defend when you know you can get away with murder.

both teams got away with a few cheeky shots ... it happens in rugby, its not tiddly winks!

without being derogatory to bradford (i still thought you played well!) the space was there, you failed to exploit it - that has nothing to do with what the opposition were or werent doing

Seems to me some on here have benn infected with lets-blame-the-ref-itis and im probably not going to be able to change your mind