: Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:03 pm  

The Dors wrote:

And umpteen high shots on Gleese and Black who they were clearly targeting. Having said that, we had enough chances to win we just had no luck.

Funny how you always see the high shots on your own players but never on others..

The number of times that Gaskell and Dodd took a high shot was similarly disappointing.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:17 pm  

In EnemyTerritory wrote:

Funny how you always see the high shots on your own players but never on others..

The number of times that Gaskell and Dodd took a high shot was similarly disappointing.

It's true I didn't see them but I how many penalties did we get for a high shot? None. I'm pretty sure you got 2 at least. Anyway don't listen to me I'm still bitter

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:08 pm  

The Dors wrote:

It's true I didn't see them but I how many penalties did we get for a high shot? None. I'm pretty sure you got 2 at least. Anyway don't listen to me I'm still bitter

I've been bitter since 22nd July 2008 mate so no worries on that front.
From what I recall you did get a high shot penalty down near your end although I can't remember who it was or who it was given against...

It did seem an unusually low penalty count for us but I know Cullen has taken to smartening up the discipline in a big way. An indication of how much this has improved is Mr penalty himself Lee Doran.. He would have been responsible for at least half a dozen penalties normally but he kept his nose clean yesterday.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:34 pm  

Instead of Doran, you had Koe Love who went high & grappled in nearly every tackle in the 1st half, some right infront of the tj's. Over 3000 people saw it except for 3 inept officials who were out of their depth in such a big game yesterday!

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:56 pm  

griffax wrote:

Instead of Doran, you had Koe Love who went high & grappled in nearly every tackle in the 1st half, some right infront of the tj's. Over 3000 people saw it except for 3 inept officials who were out of their depth in such a big game yesterday!

ha ha... I thought the attendance was 3,900 odd seeing as there were between 1,500 and 2,000 odd Widnes fans ( a figure from a Leigh fan) there yesterday meaning only 2,400 would have seen it tops.. more likely 1,900..

Get your blinkered spectacles off. There was plenty of tackling up top but it was all in an attempt to stop the ball from being released (a problem we have suffered with recently) the fact it was right in front of the TJ's should tell you it was legit.

Get over it and move on.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:35 pm  

In EnemyTerritory wrote:

ha ha... I thought the attendance was 3,900 odd seeing as there were between 1,500 and 2,000 odd Widnes fans ( a figure from a Leigh fan) there yesterday meaning only 2,400 would have seen it tops.. more likely 1,900..

Get your blinkered spectacles off. There was plenty of tackling up top but it was all in an attempt to stop the ball from being released (a problem we have suffered with recently) the fact it was right in front of the TJ's should tell you it was legit.

Get over it and move on.

haha..the north stand holds 1020!!! it was only 2 thirds full(a great following mind.)
so where you put 2000 ill never know!!

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:44 pm  

ryansimmsno1faxfan wrote:

haha..the north stand holds 1020!!! it was only 2 thirds full(a great following mind.)
so where you put 2000 ill never know!!

Well that was an estimate put forward from a Leigh fan (and one that's not a great fan of Widnes) stood in the South Stand..

Interestingly enough the South stand seems comparable to the North stand in size so that makes 2,000 for the two. The west stand doesn't look like it can hold more than 1500 going from your figures which would mean that the new East stand will have to hold 11,500 to get near the SL standard?? Even if you add an extra 2,000 to the South stand to be generous and a 1,000 to the West stand then your new stand would still need to hold 8,500..
So either the North stand holds a lot more than 1020 or your new stand won't bring the capacity up to SL standard.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:35 pm  

from the footy site, seems strange how the south stand holds so much more than the north, but these are the stats! http://www.halifaxafc.co.uk/page/GuideT ... 37,00.html

from the footy site, seems strange how the south stand holds so much more than the north, but these are the stats! http://www.halifaxafc.co.uk/page/GuideT ... 37,00.html

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:37 pm  

It holds more than 1020.. It is just set at that at the moment. Something to do with toilets etc I think..

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:38 pm  

ryansimmsno1faxfan wrote: from the footy site, seems strange how the south stand holds so much more than the north, but these are the stats! http://www.halifaxafc.co.uk/page/GuideT ... 37,00.html the south stand is much deeper though 3x as big is surprising to say the least. surely if we got 1500 behing the sticks at cas the north stand can hold more than that?

ryansimmsno1faxfan wrote: from the footy site, seems strange how the south stand holds so much more than the north, but these are the stats! http://www.halifaxafc.co.uk/page/GuideT ... 37,00.html the south stand is much deeper though 3x as big is surprising to say the least. surely if we got 1500 behing the sticks at cas the north stand can hold more than that?