[PopTart]

Re: Matt Parcell : Tue May 28, 2019 9:46 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

Common sense, if a player was clear through and the ref ran straight at him and collided with him would you say the ref had a right to be there? If a team broke and he managed to get himself right in between the supporting player the try scoring pass would’ve gone to.

There’s a right to be where he wants....with common sense. He shouldn’t be stopping defenders stopping tries because they’ve had to divert around him or stop in their tracks.

Are you trying to suggest Parcell isn't at fault?
There are plenty of times an attacking player runs towards a ref to cause the defense a problem. I'm certain Parcell has done it in his role as Hooker.
It's still the defense responsibility to not touch the ref.

It's just a rule you are going to have to accept.

Re: Matt Parcell : Wed May 29, 2019 8:17 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

I’m not “obsessed” with the refs positioning, it’s just a pretty key factor in an issue of a player colliding with a ref (comparing it someone being hit by a car is pretty poor taste and OTT btw)

The ref does have a right to be where he wants but doesn’t make him free from criticism or make it an impossibility that he made a poor movement/positioning.

Funny that you refuse to believe it’s accidental because I refuse to believe that the fact that Leeds’ next game happens to be against Wakefield isn’t why SOME of you are so keen to see him banned and making a deal of it. Sure you’d be as bothered if we weren’t facing you again this season

It's not in poor taste at all - it's a reasonable analogy; so deflection won't help you.

You're just wrong about this one - which won't be a new concept for you; and if you think that opposition supporters would even notice if Matt Parcell was banned, you're deluded.

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: Matt Parcell : Wed May 29, 2019 10:30 am  

Big lads mate wrote:

Centre half for Manchester United in the 70s, a bit of useless information

Arsenal caretaker manager?

Re: Matt Parcell : Wed May 29, 2019 11:12 am  

wakeytrin wrote:

You're obviously not going to let this go.

the guys argumentative, one of those kids at school that was never ready when he was bowled out at cricket and always wanted a sally

Re: Matt Parcell : Wed May 29, 2019 11:40 am  

Big lads mate wrote:

Centre half for Manchester United in the 70s, a bit of useless information

You're correct, it is useless information. He was a left back.

Re: Matt Parcell : Wed May 29, 2019 3:27 pm  

snowie wrote:

the guys argumentative, one of those kids at school that was never ready when he was bowled out at cricket and always wanted a sally

It’s a discussion board with a key point being to debate things and a number of Wakefield posters have posted just as much on this topic with some including yourself resorting to insults or mocking. Yet I’m argumentative just because you don’t like or agree with my view.

Re: Matt Parcell : Wed May 29, 2019 5:56 pm  

Overground wrote:

You're correct, it is useless information. He was a left back.

Splitting hairs

Re: Matt Parcell : Wed May 29, 2019 6:03 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

It’s a discussion board with a key point being to debate things and a number of Wakefield posters have posted just as much on this topic with some including yourself resorting to insults or mocking. Yet I’m argumentative just because you don’t like or agree with my view.

thank you for backing up my post up yet again, if you think for one minute that were obsessed in getting Parcel banned you are deluded he doesn't pose a threat,
as for the collisions with the refs, once could be accidental, twice is stupid, three times definitely requires action upon and that's within 2 games especially when the first one was within his vision and he couldn't of even of stopped the try only prevent a closer kick in which my gran could of converted it.
carry on your complaining as you are just continuing to make your self into the clown

Re: Matt Parcell : Wed May 29, 2019 6:16 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

It’s a discussion board with a key point being to debate things and a number of Wakefield posters have posted just as much on this topic with some including yourself resorting to insults or mocking. Yet I’m argumentative just because you don’t like or agree with my view.

I wish to offer you a job.

I have a hole in my back garden that needs digging

Re: Matt Parcell : Wed May 29, 2019 6:40 pm  

snowie wrote:

thank you for backing up my post up yet again, if you think for one minute that were obsessed in getting Parcel banned you are deluded he doesn't pose a threat,
as for the collisions with the refs, once could be accidental, twice is stupid, three times definitely requires action upon and that's within 2 games especially when the first one was within his vision and he couldn't of even of stopped the try only prevent a closer kick in which my gran could of converted it.
carry on your complaining as you are just continuing to make your self into the clown

Not said anyone was “obsessed” or “deluded” or “argumentative” or “clown”......those words have been thrown at me simply because I’ve said the refs could do better with their positioning. Have you seen the third incident by any chance? Leeds put up a high kick and Child moves one way, then the other then back again then stops dead about 3/4m right in front of the London FB. Where do you think the Leeds chasers are coming from and do you honestly think that’s the best place to find himself? Because the ball ends up bouncing then Parcell could’ve possibly gotten to it if his path wasn’t blocked. A good ref with good positional awareness shouldn’t have players having to stop dead in their tracks or run around him to get to a ball or a tackle.