: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:35 am
the flying biscuit wrote:
Interesting towards the end of the game when Bailey was held up in a two man tackle and Graham came in and shouldered him in the back.......??
That would be a shoulder in the ribs not the back. Bailey was stood sideways and Graham came in legally.
the flying biscuit wrote:
I suppose anywhere else in the world thats 3rd man $hithouse stuff.......
No, it's called completing a tackle.
the flying biscuit wrote:
Bailey hit fasavalu fair and square and the Saints fans go nuts ....and Grahm hits a bloke in the back 3rd man in and "there's only one James Graham rings out"........
Again, not in the back it was in the ribs.
At the time i thought the Bailey hit was terrible, however upon later reflection and watching it on sky it wasn't as bad. I can still understand why people went nuts. It was not as bad as first thought but it was certainly bordering on illegal. A shoulder charge is a good tackle, not when it is a shoulder to the face resulting in him being KO'd and blood everywhere. Also the reaction to it was due to the fact Bailey is a coward.
Of course there would be no such reaction if that happened at the HJ.
the flying biscuit wrote:
what a ground full of cocks that place is........
OK.
'Hitman' Norvern Soul wrote:
Fantastic stuff.
Come on Pembo, we are mates but i'm going to have to put you straight on a few issues.
I thought that the retaliation was always the penalised crime? [/quote]
No. Look at the famous video sharing website and look at a video involving Braith Anasta and South Sydney.
'Hitman' Norvern Soul wrote:
Why wasn't Gimlour penalised when Bentham clearly stated, three times, that Gilmour had retaliated to Lee Smith
Simply, because Smith initiaded the incident.
'Hitman' Norvern Soul wrote:
(when, in fact, Gilmour looked like he was using Smudge's head and face as a bowling bowl)?
Perfectly legal tackle by Gilly. Smith pushed/punched him and, according to Gilly bit him, as a result i see no issue with a little scuffle. Gilly punched Wilkin more than Smith.
'Hitman' Norvern Soul wrote:
Couldn't work it out, myself. Has that rule changed lately?
No but think of it this way.
Player A puches player B repeatedly. the penalty would evidently go to player B.
Player A puches player B repeatedly. Player B retaliates. Penalty to player A.
Err....no, come on.
