: Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:44 am  

FCTID wrote:

What?and upset Justin again, wish we'd had Thaler,

I thought Rovers fans hated Silverwood - maybe Thaler's just the new villain.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:49 am  

downtheante wrote:

and then grabbed his ankle to start another tackle but during the second tackle Tansey's ball-carying arm did not touch the ground. Therefore, try should have stood. Why didn't they use all of the camera angles before making the decision?

I watched it back dozens of times and couldnt see Fox releasing him for a split second at all. Tackle complete and correct decision for me.

However, the Cooke try where i reclaimed his own bomb his arm/wrist hit the ground before he offloaded for me.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:55 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

I watched it back dozens of times and couldnt see Fox releasing him for a split second at all. Tackle complete and correct decision for me.

However, the Cooke try where i reclaimed his own bomb his arm/wrist hit the ground before he offloaded for me.

It was the new angle they showed after the try had been awarded. I couldn't see any daylight until they showed that one, when he clearly released - benefit of doubt to attack? I also agree that there was no dayliight between Cooke's hand and the ground - Leeds had a similar try disallowed when Sinfield's (I think it was Sinfield) hand touched the ground before passing. I also think Cooke's second try had enough interference from another Rovers player to have been ruled out for obstruction. Did I mention the player in front of the kick on Cooke's first try who encroached within 10 metres of Tansey - thus offside? Can you tell I'm an FC fan?

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:58 am  

downtheante wrote:

It was the new angle they showed after the try had been awarded. I couldn't see any daylight until they showed that one, when he clearly released - benefit of doubt to attack? I also agree that there was no dayliight between Cooke's hand and the ground - Leeds had a similar try disallowed when Sinfield's (I think it was Sinfield) hand touched the ground before passing. I also think Cooke's second try had enough interference from another Rovers player to have been ruled out for obstruction. Did I mention the player in front of the kick on Cooke's first try who encroached within 10 metres of Tansey - thus offside? Can you tell I'm an FC fan?

Personally i'd have only said the 1st Cooke try should have been disallowed. Our forward pass shouldnt have been disallowed and also Rovers wouldnt have then gone up field the next set and scored. End result 24-12 to us, count ourselves unlucky i think.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:13 pm  

downtheante wrote:

It was the new angle they showed after the try had been awarded. I couldn't see any daylight until they showed that one, when he clearly released - benefit of doubt to attack? I also agree that there was no dayliight between Cooke's hand and the ground - Leeds had a similar try disallowed when Sinfield's (I think it was Sinfield) hand touched the ground before passing. I also think Cooke's second try had enough interference from another Rovers player to have been ruled out for obstruction. Did I mention the player in front of the kick on Cooke's first try who encroached within 10 metres of Tansey - thus offside? Can you tell I'm an FC fan?

The ref knew if he disallowed the Cooke try Justin would have had to go to Red Hall again F--k me he cannot afford another fine

Re: screwed : Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:12 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Are you still refereeing at amateur/school level in Hull?

My opinion (from what you have said so far), is that you are a deluded fool. I seriously doubt that you have ever refereed any game at anything like a serious level.

If you have and have decided to walk away from the game, then all I can say is that the game is better off without you.

And my opinion is you would make a superb replacement for Cummings.
Totally oblivious to anyone else's viewpoint be it right or wrong. (those blinkers must be a foot long).
You are supremely arrogant.
You will never admit you are wrong.
And quite possibly a meglomaniac.....

Re: screwed : Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:20 pm  

TKOAH wrote:

sick of all the knockers on here so before they come on here moaning. the rfl need to do something about the sub standard officiating in our game. the raynor try was no way forward add to that the calderwood try in the 1st half fox had fallen off the tackle as proven by a replay that bentham couldn't be bothered to look at. these clowns are costing players and clubs dearly plus fans are paying good money they deserve their club to have a fair chance

Re: screwed : Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:21 pm  

Andrea FC wrote:

:CLAP: the clown lost us the game tonight

Re: screwed : Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:22 pm  

therobins wrote:

:SUBMISSION:

TIT

Re: screwed : Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:25 pm  

TKOAH wrote:

The one in the 2nd haf cost us a minimum of 8 points (webster wouldn't have had chance to score his try as FC would have had the ball kicked to them from the re-start) probably 10, which gives us the win. But yet again Cummings will sweep his officials poor performance under the carpet and nothing will be said.

Yeah, and I'm sure I saw Silverwood order all four of the missed tackles which led to 'Fish' running through and setting up Jake for his try.

Please be honest with yourselves. The table doesn't lie.