: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:08 am  

Blobbynator wrote:

:lol:

Yeah, I laughed too.

As did John Kear.

It would have been an insult to the sport if you'd managed to steal a point from that match.

Re: Oops : Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:25 am  

Saddened! wrote:

Well done Wakefield. A thoroughly deserved win and tactically spot on. John Kear is an absolutely fantastic coach. his rank and file mob went about their business superbly, led brilliantly by Brough and Demetriou

Saddened! wrote:

While our 11 internationals ran round making a fool of themselves in the most disorganised shamozal I've ever seen.

Best back handed compliment ever.

Re: Oops : Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:44 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Then Mr Potter had the option of putting Lomax on the field who apparently is a goalkicker. Instead, he was on the bench for most of the night. Mr Potter doesn't get off scot free from Friday's match. He definitely has to take responsibility for allocating the goalkicking. That was his job.

Lomax went off injured, didn't he?

: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:51 am  

Fishsta wrote:

Must try spelling, Tony Stark.

Better now? Point still remains

Re: Oops : Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:01 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Then Mr Potter had the option of putting Lomax on the field who apparently is a goalkicker. Instead, he was on the bench for most of the night. Mr Potter doesn't get off scot free from Friday's match. He definitely has to take responsibility for allocating the goalkicking. That was his job.

Potter said Wellens kicked well in training and was the best of the bunch.

As it turns out, Wello kicked poorly on the night and Potter said Lomax would have taken over kicking after coming on had he not been injured.

How you can blame Potter for that is beyond me.

: Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:55 pm  

Tony Stark wrote:

Better now? Point still remains

What point, exactly? I don't recall you making any point or indeed trying to argue with what I wrote. It was all factual, and the evidence of said player now nursing an injury proves that Cunningham seems to be on some sort of "free to do as they please" list, just like Sculthorpe was.

Taken from the RFL disciplinary report:

"Player intentionally has a jab at the Wakefield player and as such is guilty of misconduct; however the Panel are giving him the benefit of the doubt that contact with the eye is accidental and as such consider that it is appropriate to deal with this matter by way of a caution"

I'm sure most of the incidents they deal with are "accidental", I'm sure Howell didn't "mean" to hit Sam Tomkins quite as he did, but he got a three match ban, and the RFL said they were being lenient as there was no injury!

Cunningham is a danger to other players. That is clear.

A ban was SO deserved for what he's done. Let me ask you all a question...

Which would you prefer: To see someone in front of you take illegal drugs, or to have someone punch you in the face and break your eye socket?

Hmm. I know which I'd choose. To my mind, the punishment for punching someone and possibly ending their career (or even life) should be MORE severe than taking an illegal drug. Please note (and I do feel I need to point this out), I did not say that taking drugs should be dealt with less severely. Do the RFL even realise what message this sends out to other players?

The worst part is "giving him the benefit of the doubt that contact with the eye is accidental"... so Cunningham meant to punch somewhere else, then? His nose? His chin? Cheekbone? Kneecaps? Hey, everyone, punching in Rugby League is perfectly fair! Let's all join in, just keep away from the eyes and no-one will do anything about it!

So, Cunningham is the thug I always said he was, and the RFL still can't show any consistency and punish players that NEED punishing.

Kind of proves that every word I've written over the past decade was absolutely spot on.

Cunningham a legend? Don't make me choke with laughter. He's a wimp. A big wimp, admittedly. But still a wimp.

: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:08 pm  

Fishsta wrote:

What point, exactly? I don't recall you making any point or indeed trying to argue with what I wrote. It was all factual, and the evidence of said player now nursing an injury proves that Cunningham seems to be on some sort of "free to do as they please" list, just like Sculthorpe was.

Taken from the RFL disciplinary report:

"Player intentionally has a jab at the Wakefield player and as such is guilty of misconduct; however the Panel are giving him the benefit of the doubt that contact with the eye is accidental and as such consider that it is appropriate to deal with this matter by way of a caution"

I'm sure most of the incidents they deal with are "accidental", I'm sure Howell didn't "mean" to hit Sam Tomkins quite as he did, but he got a three match ban, and the RFL said they were being lenient as there was no injury!

Cunningham is a danger to other players. That is clear.

A ban was SO deserved for what he's done. Let me ask you all a question...

Which would you prefer: To see someone in front of you take illegal drugs, or to have someone punch you in the face and break your eye socket?

Hmm. I know which I'd choose. To my mind, the punishment for punching someone and possibly ending their career (or even life) should be MORE severe than taking an illegal drug. Please note (and I do feel I need to point this out), I did not say that taking drugs should be dealt with less severely. Do the RFL even realise what message this sends out to other players?

The worst part is "giving him the benefit of the doubt that contact with the eye is accidental"... so Cunningham meant to punch somewhere else, then? His nose? His chin? Cheekbone? Kneecaps? Hey, everyone, punching in Rugby League is perfectly fair! Let's all join in, just keep away from the eyes and no-one will do anything about it!

So, Cunningham is the thug I always said he was, and the RFL still can't show any consistency and punish players that NEED punishing.

Kind of proves that every word I've written over the past decade was absolutely spot on.

Cunningham a legend? Don't make me choke with laughter. He's a wimp. A big wimp, admittedly. But still a wimp.

Cunningham is indeed a legend, as repeated from an earlier thread there is something to be learnt from all this.......you don't mess with the King
The most prolific try scorer (hooker) in the 13 years of superleague and also the most disciplined
Coming to the end of his career yet still feared by many....a living legend the King.

Re: Oops : Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:21 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

How you can blame Potter for that is beyond me.

Lomax was on the bench for most of the match. He only went off injured late in the second half. That's plenty of goalkicking time he missed by not being on the field. I think the only goal he couldn't have kicked was the penalty, due to him being off injured.

Who plays in a match is a coach's decision. Who kicks goals is a coach's decision. If those things go wrong, it's the coach's responsibility. They went wrong on Friday night. Thus, I blame the coach.

: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:27 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

The most prolific try scorer (hooker) in the 13 years of superleague and also the most disciplined
Coming to the end of his career yet still feared by many....a living legend the King.

Disciplined by the RFL's standard where apparently you can punch someone in the face and not get penalised, never mind disciplined.

Right.

I've watched Cunningham drop elbows onto downed players, just like Joynt used to, just like Sculthorpe used to and just like Pryce and Wilkin still do. They are all Stains players. And they constantly get away with it.

Enough is enough. The sport of Rugby League is under threat from ridiculous decisions such as this.

: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:27 pm  

It goes a bit deeper for me.
Why do we insist on playing players out of position.
We had the countries best stand off (allegedly) at scum half, we had not even our best second row at stand off. i know he had a good game against Leeds in the cup , but the bilge on show from him Friday outweighs that performance, his short kicking game was dreadful. We had better kicking options from the juniors in Foster & Ellis who seem to bang em over from everywhere , cant get a look in.
Surely we should play a scrum half at scrum half(1 goalkicker)
Whilst Chris Dean played well , I dont think Jamie Foster would have been any worse (another goal kicker) . this would eradicate the need to press gang Wellens into goal kicking as you would have 2 to chose from.