: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:02 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Or not as the case maybe but I'm sure they're spinable if you put your colossal mind to it.

i am leaving those stats and hoping the thread will drift away silently.

I used too many grey cells playing yesterday to have to exercise them again today.

Today I will just be calling people fekkwitts.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:11 pm  

On Bailey this week: http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=786 http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=787 No action on the high tackle, and a 'formal caution' for striking, in the fight in the last quarter. As a team we've sailed very close to the wind for these fights, lets knock these on the head, surely another incident will lead a player to be banned. Which we can do without. Nice to see the Leeds props of today slugging side by side.

On Bailey this week: http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=786 http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=787 No action on the high tackle, and a 'formal caution' for striking, in the fight in the last quarter. As a team we've sailed very close to the wind for these fights, lets knock these on the head, surely another incident will lead a player to be banned. Which we can do without. Nice to see the Leeds props of today slugging side by side.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:12 pm  

G1 wrote:

Today I will just be calling people fekkwitts.

Nice to have a change from time to time.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:13 pm  

thebloodbath wrote: On Bailey this week: http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=786 http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=787 No action on the high tackle, and a 'formal caution' for striking, in the fight in the last quarter. As a team we've sailed very close to the wind for these fights, lets knock these on the head, surely another incident will lead a player to be banned. Which we can do without. Nice to see the Leeds props of today slugging side by side. Are you suggesting they just stand there and take the punches? If we were actually starting the fisticuffs I can understand the issue. But certainly in the case of last Sunday, do you not think the oppossition are trying to get us into that sort of position? To me if one player can throw a punch, then he should be able to take one.

thebloodbath wrote: On Bailey this week: http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=786 http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplin ... php?id=787 No action on the high tackle, and a 'formal caution' for striking, in the fight in the last quarter. As a team we've sailed very close to the wind for these fights, lets knock these on the head, surely another incident will lead a player to be banned. Which we can do without. Nice to see the Leeds props of today slugging side by side. Are you suggesting they just stand there and take the punches? If we were actually starting the fisticuffs I can understand the issue. But certainly in the case of last Sunday, do you not think the oppossition are trying to get us into that sort of position? To me if one player can throw a punch, then he should be able to take one.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:16 pm  

G1 wrote:

Today I will just be calling people fekkwitts.

Good, cue Alan Partridge, 'Nobody does it better. oooh bit of bush.'

DISA wrote:

To me if one player can throw a punch, then he should be able to take one.

Speaking of which where was Paul Rauhihi at the disciplinary this week?

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:19 pm  

DISA wrote:

Are you suggesting they just stand there and take the punches?

If we were actually starting the fisticuffs I can understand the issue. But certainly in the case of last Sunday, do you not think the oppossition are trying to get us into that sort of position?

To me if one player can throw a punch, then he should be able to take one.

Bailey starts the fights then goes hiding. I've only ever seen him stand toe to toe with one player and that was when Sculthorp knocked seven bells out of him.

Peacock also threw the first punch against Manly.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:21 pm  

DISA wrote:

Are you suggesting they just stand there and take the punches?

If we were actually starting the fisticuffs I can understand the issue. But certainly in the case of last Sunday, do you not think the oppossition are trying to get us into that sort of position?

To me if one player can throw a punch, then he should be able to take one.

Wire aside, what about the other incidents? I feel we could have kept a lid on it. Displayed control. Even if the opposition are trying to lure us into it, so what?? If they tempted you to jump off a cliff, would you jump? I just think we should avoid jumping into things, clearly marked 'TRAP'. Slug it out if needed, but we are a hell of a rugby side, when we play rugby. That's how you win games. We can knock them about any road, without raising a fist. With our fragile squad at the moment, we need to avoid needless bans. That won't help our situation. Bluey mentioned this last week and I agree.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:26 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Speaking of which where was Paul Rauhihi at the disciplinary this week?

Pass. I know Brother Louie received a naughty letter that needs his mam's signature. Was he cited personally? Or was it the whole thing?

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:33 pm  

thebloodbath wrote:

Wire aside, what about the other incidents? I feel we could have kept a lid on it. Displayed control. Even if the opposition are trying to lure us into it, so what?? If they tempted you to jump off a cliff, would you jump? I just think we should avoid jumping into things, clearly marked 'TRAP'. Slug it out if needed, but we are a hell of a rugby side, when we play rugby. That's how you win games. We can knock them about any road, without raising a fist. With our fragile squad at the moment, we need to avoid needless bans. That won't help our situation. Bluey mentioned this last week and I agree.

But you posted your initial post on the Bailey thread, and implied towards Bailey disciplinary. The other incidents were entirely Peacock.

I have watched Bailey many times get done with cheap shots on him and get up and laugh, not taking it further. On Sunday he could not possibly have just stood there and taken it. Then he gets some cowardly cheap shot merchant come from behind and lay into him too. Should he have done nothing there also.

I agree about trying to get away from getting sucked into punch ups.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:34 pm  

thebloodbath wrote:

:shock:

Pass. I know Brother Louie received a naughty letter that needs his mam's signature. Was he cited personally? Or was it the whole thing?

As far as I know it was the entire incident that was put on report, the one that Paul Rauhihi took no part in whatsoever apparently.

What a confusing world we live in at times.