Re: Sin bin should be used more : Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:21 pm  

forrard wrote: Its not how many , its when and where. Can you explain Emmets sin binning ? ........... no thought not, neither can anyone else. thanks for the name calling , it just lets me know i am dealing with a lower intelligence byee According to Basil in his post match press conference shown on the Tigers website http://www.castigers.com/article.php?id=2077 , He asked Thaler why Emmit was penalised and sent to the bin and he (Thaler) said that Emmit had been offside and prevented a try scoring opportunity for the Bulls so the Ref was put in a no-win situation where he had to bin Jake. Makes sense cos we were wondering why we had Jake binned yet had no official warning , Its just a shame that the officials can't let the fans now their decisions more clearly, at times yesterday I found Thalers hand signals very confusing BTW Watch the video of the press conference to see Basil give one of the Journos a bollocking for asking a question then turning his back on Basil lol Delboy66(aye of the tigers fanzine)

forrard wrote: Its not how many , its when and where. Can you explain Emmets sin binning ? ........... no thought not, neither can anyone else. thanks for the name calling , it just lets me know i am dealing with a lower intelligence byee According to Basil in his post match press conference shown on the Tigers website http://www.castigers.com/article.php?id=2077 , He asked Thaler why Emmit was penalised and sent to the bin and he (Thaler) said that Emmit had been offside and prevented a try scoring opportunity for the Bulls so the Ref was put in a no-win situation where he had to bin Jake. Makes sense cos we were wondering why we had Jake binned yet had no official warning , Its just a shame that the officials can't let the fans now their decisions more clearly, at times yesterday I found Thalers hand signals very confusing BTW Watch the video of the press conference to see Basil give one of the Journos a bollocking for asking a question then turning his back on Basil lol Delboy66(aye of the tigers fanzine)

Re: Sin bin should be used more : Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:30 pm  

[quote="delboy66"] According to Basil in his post match press conference shown on the Tigers website http://www.castigers.com/article.php?id=2077 , He asked Thaler why Emmit was penalised and sent to the bin and he (Thaler) said that Emmit had been offside and prevented a try scoring opportunity for the Bulls so the Ref was put in a no-win situation where he had to bin Jake. Strange that one mate cos if that is the case, the Bulls should have been down to 8 men in the first half. I cant recall them being onside once

[quote="delboy66"] According to Basil in his post match press conference shown on the Tigers website http://www.castigers.com/article.php?id=2077 , He asked Thaler why Emmit was penalised and sent to the bin and he (Thaler) said that Emmit had been offside and prevented a try scoring opportunity for the Bulls so the Ref was put in a no-win situation where he had to bin Jake. Strange that one mate cos if that is the case, the Bulls should have been down to 8 men in the first half. I cant recall them being onside once

Re: Sin bin should be used more : Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:05 pm  

Further to that, Emmitt tackled their player about 10 metres from our line and there were other players in attendance. Sounds like a poor excuse to me.

Re: Sin bin should be used more : Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:42 am  

Fully wrote:

Further to that, Emmitt tackled their player about 10 metres from our line and there were other players in attendance. Sounds like a poor excuse to me.

Can't win - we don't get an explaination and its a fix, he gives one and it is a poor excuse. Referee's don't care, whatever you think who wins and who doesn't they call what they see. Go watch some game as a neutral and see how one eyed and one way the crowd see decisions.

You are entitled to your opinion of course! My views are my own personally!

Re: Sin bin should be used more : Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:42 am  

mdean wrote:

Can't win - we don't get an explaination and its a fix, he gives one and it is a poor excuse. Referee's don't care, whatever you think who wins and who doesn't they call what they see. Go watch some game as a neutral and see how one eyed and one way the crowd see decisions.

You are entitled to your opinion of course! My views are my own personally!

Anyone with an ounce of sense would have realised as soon as ben failure got a cas match that we would be up against the wall. He proved everyone right by ignoring laying on and persistant offsides for the away side only. If you went , you would have seen that

Re: Sin bin should be used more : Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:37 am  

forrard wrote:

Anyone with an ounce of sense would have realised as soon as ben failure got a cas match that we would be up against the wall. He proved everyone right by ignoring laying on and persistant offsides for the away side only. If you went , you would have seen that

Whilst he did make some mistakes, there can be no argument that we got plenty of penalties in response to the Bulls tactics. It's true there was a lot went unpunished but just imagine how much more boring the game would've been if he'd acted on that as well.

For me there should've been more focus on cleaning up the play-the-ball which was slowed to a crawl whenever we were in possession, and certainly action should've been taken sooner. The explanation for the Emmitt sinbinning is at least an explanation, however doesn't seem to fit the circumstances at the time. One could argue that Bradford prevented any number of try-scoring opportunities by being offside in their own ten metre area throughout the game.

Refereeing performances in Super League often lack consistency however we got our penalties on Sunday yet did nothing with the advantage.

Re: Sin bin should be used more : Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:24 am  

Bonzo wrote:

Whilst he did make some mistakes, there can be no argument that we got plenty of penalties in response to the Bulls tactics. It's true there was a lot went unpunished but just imagine how much more boring the game would've been if he'd acted on that as well.

For me there should've been more focus on cleaning up the play-the-ball which was slowed to a crawl whenever we were in possession, and certainly action should've been taken sooner. The explanation for the Emmitt sinbinning is at least an explanation, however doesn't seem to fit the circumstances at the time. One could argue that Bradford prevented any number of try-scoring opportunities by being offside in their own ten metre area throughout the game.

Refereeing performances in Super League often lack consistency however we got our penalties on Sunday yet did nothing with the advantage.

But failure should have used his yellow card for their persistant offsides instead of saving it to level it out. I think there is consistancy, especially with failure and bentham, they shouldnt be allowed near a game of rugby

Re: Sin bin should be used more : Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:50 pm  

I sometimes think I watch a different game.
I agree there are some inconsitencies - but mostly inconsistency is in the eye of the beholder. I think you have to have an ounce of sense to appreciate this as well.

I think it would be fairer to say that our mistakes cost us the game and our own failure to complete high and stop Bradford believing in themselves as I said before the game on that thread. So we can heap it on Ben Thaler, who incidentally I am no great fan of in a professional sense, but to do so doesn't give Bradford enough credit and allows the players too much excuse.

If we had taken care of the things we can influence, then we would have won.

Re: Sin bin should be used more : Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:14 pm  

We were crap, that much possesion near to their line and we couldnt finish, dont blame the ref, or the bulls, they played a very simple game to which we allowed them to dominate, Their no7 was outstanding in those conditions

Re: Sin bin should be used more : Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:41 pm  

mdean wrote:

I sometimes think I watch a different game.
I agree there are some inconsitencies - but mostly inconsistency is in the eye of the beholder. I think you have to have an ounce of sense to appreciate this as well.

I think it would be fairer to say that our mistakes cost us the game and our own failure to complete high and stop Bradford believing in themselves as I said before the game on that thread. So we can heap it on Ben Thaler, who incidentally I am no great fan of in a professional sense, but to do so doesn't give Bradford enough credit and allows the players too much excuse.

If we had taken care of the things we can influence, then we would have won.

I don't think anyone is blaming Thaler in the entirety for our loss. That would be flipping ridiculous. However, my point was merely reflective of that was that it was an unjustifiable, poor excuse based on what he said.