Re: From a neutrals point of view... : Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:23 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

Go on, i'm interested to hear, with reference to the laws, how that could have possibly been interpreted as a knock on.

I realise you are trolling as usual, just intregued if you will rise to it and explain.

me too

Re: From a neutrals point of view... : Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:26 pm  

rpw wrote:

:shock: It went backwards FFS... i can't beleive what i'm seeing. my wife is a bulls fan and she agreed so it aint just leeds biased..also the poster agrees whos fc.

Give it a rest. It was collected further forward than where it came off the first Leeds man.

You are a biased joke.

rpw wrote:

You are a tool mate. take your trolling elswhere and get a life big boy

I'm not trolling. I'm calling the decisions the same as the referee did.

If you cannot take losing its best you give up watching the game.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:27 pm  

if he tried to catch it then it was a knock on.
if it was a flicked pass the ref is not allowed to go the screen

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:27 pm  

King Monkey wrote:

Leeds were NOT robbed.

THe decisions were correct.

Get over it FFS.

Apart from the 'forward pass' to Hall in the first half I agree.

Re: From a neutrals point of view... : Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:28 pm  

rpw wrote:

:shock: It went backwards FFS... i can't beleive what i'm seeing. my wife is a bulls fan and she agreed so it aint just leeds biased..also the poster agrees whos fc.

If going backwards is the same as going a meter or so forward then I agree, yes.... it went backwards.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:29 pm  

we were crap and didn't really deserve to win, but to lose to mickey poor reffing is not on at the top level.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:29 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

you saying it wasn't forward! both the opening trys were a mile forward.
if burrows try was ruled out i expect to see every try from a break also chalked off

Too right.

As we speak now the RFL are going through the records and chalking of half of Ellery Hanley's tries throughout his career

Re: From a neutrals point of view... : Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:30 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

Go on, i'm interested to hear, with reference to the laws, how that could have possibly been interpreted as a knock on.

I realise you are trolling as usual, just intregued if you will rise to it and explain.

The ball was knocked forward accidentally and played another man before the ball hit the floor. Had the man who knocked it forward regathered it would have been play on.

It was not a forward pass because it was not an intentional pass by the player it hit first.

Re: From a neutrals point of view... : Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:30 pm  

Hollywood Harrigan wrote:

If going backwards is the same as going a meter or so forward then I agree, yes.... it went backwards.

I think my TV must be warped.

Re: From a neutrals point of view... : Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:31 pm  

rpw wrote:

Thank you my friend. we certainley were. Now we were pretty poor - think the saints loss took its toll but that was scandallous tonight.. 2 possibly 3 tries were wrongly ruled out against us, the worst one was the last try... how they judged that to be a knock on i'll never know as long as i live. I am absoloutley furious. dreadful game though. We also need to get our cheque book out sharpish cos we aint good at all at the moment.

Where you so bitter at the Millenium a few years ago,,,Remember Tansey!!!!ThinkBulls deserved it TBH..