: Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:42 pm  

Kin ell mate, you're like a terrier with an old slipper. You won, let it go...

[tb]

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:43 pm  

Code13 wrote:

Huddersfield were getting more men in the tackle, which is why we controlled the ruck more.

Cas were just holding down and in many cases flopping on.

You might think that. The official – and objective – record disagrees.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:05 pm  

Code13 wrote:

Huddersfield were getting more men in the tackle, which is why we controlled the ruck more.

Cas were just holding down and in many cases flopping on.

Huddersfield were penalised, correctly for their infringements each time, Cas got away with it, or are you actually suggesting there wasnt a single offence caused by Cas in that second half?

That's funny.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:27 pm  

RFL Disciplinary Panel disagree with HMMMMMMMatterson (I've always wanted to type that)

RFL Disciplinary Panel disagree with HMMMMMMMatterson (I've always wanted to type that)

[tb]

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:34 pm  

Wadski wrote: RFL Disciplinary Panel disagree with HMMMMMMMatterson (I've always wanted to type that) Really? "Penalty sufficient", "Unnecessary contact with neck of tackled player", "Player contact with neck of opponent but benefit given to defender that he was completing tackle and not intending to injure", "Unnecessary pressure on joint in 78th minute – warning letter" are hardly acquittals without a stain on your character

Wadski wrote: RFL Disciplinary Panel disagree with HMMMMMMMatterson (I've always wanted to type that) Really? "Penalty sufficient", "Unnecessary contact with neck of tackled player", "Player contact with neck of opponent but benefit given to defender that he was completing tackle and not intending to injure", "Unnecessary pressure on joint in 78th minute – warning letter" are hardly acquittals without a stain on your character

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:45 pm  

Having watched again on Sky+ how Wild stayed on I'll never know, check the 15 pens, must be 8 against him.......

How can a team conceed 15 penalties, and only get 1 sin-binning?

Straight after Cudjoe went for 10, Wild did the same again, Ganson (and Cummins) are a joke

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:47 pm  

MR BROWN wrote:

you are right you were on the end of a pretty generous penalty count. you had the lions share of possession .they were down a man for ten mins. if hudders had had these advantages, think they would have won by at least 12. matterson should learn to accept defeat graciously, as other good coaches do. he just embarrasses himself. by the way, glad you have got ferres

Worst trolling effort I've seen in some time.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:47 pm  

Wadski wrote: RFL Disciplinary Panel disagree with HMMMMMMMatterson (I've always wanted to type that) It would look like they very much agree

Wadski wrote: RFL Disciplinary Panel disagree with HMMMMMMMatterson (I've always wanted to type that) It would look like they very much agree

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:09 pm  

loads of comments made by myself and people stud around me at the game: never onside when we were on their line hense why we were playing with such a deep line and losing yards. Holding down was ridiculasly long.

And yes people round me including myself were annoyed with the grapple tackling it happened more than once quite clearly

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:25 pm  

Enough about the grapple tackles!

More importantly, who was the smeg-head who spent about 60 mins of game time on the pitch coaching the Shudds team? Didn't we get a slap on the wrists for that a few years ago? Silly @rse should have been told where to go!