: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:59 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

The same thing happened to you on Friday. Gilmour pulls Smiths hair, that's what started that fight and there was nothing wrong with either of Baileys challenges.

Nobody in officialdom has said there was anything wrong with the Bailey shoulder (either on the night or since) so you didn't need to include it in your otherwise accurate observation to be fair.

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:37 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Prop Watch V Wigan:

Kylie Leuluai:
Metres Made ….. 104
Carries ….. 15
Offloads ….. 1

Tackles ….. 10
Missed Tackles ….. 1
Errors ….. 1
Penalties ….. 1

Metres Per Drive ….. 6.93
Tackling Efficency ….. 0.91

Ryan Bailey:
Metres Made ….. ….. 86
Carries ….. ….. 15
Offloads ….. ….. 2

Tackles ….. ….. 9
Missed Tackles ….. ….. 0
Errors ….. ….. 0
Penalties ….. ….. 0

Metres Per Drive ….. ….. 5.73
Tackling Efficency ….. ….. 1.00

Jamie Peacock:
Metres Made ….. ….. ….. 208
Carries ….. ….. ….. 28
Offloads ….. ….. ….. 0

Tackles ….. ….. ….. 20
Missed Tackles ….. ….. ….. 3
Errors ….. ….. ….. 1
Penalties ….. ….. ….. 1

Metres Per Drive ….. ….. ….. 7.43
Tackling Efficency ….. ….. ….. 0.87

Luke Burgess:
Metres Made ….. ….. ….. ….. 81
Carries ….. ….. ….. ….. 12
Offloads ….. ….. ….. ….. 1

Tackles ….. ….. ….. ….. 20
Missed Tackles ….. ….. ….. ….. 5
Errors ….. ….. ….. ….. 0
Penalties ….. ….. ….. ….. 0

Metres Per Drive ….. ….. ….. ….. 6.75
Tackling Efficency ….. ….. ….. ….. 0.80

Leeds Prop Watch V St Helens:

Kylie Leuluai:
Metres Made ….. 52
Carries ….. 8
Offloads ….. 0

Tackles ….. 18
Missed Tackles ….. 1
Errors ….. 0
Penalties ….. 1

Metres Per Drive ….. 6.50
Tackling Efficency ….. 0.95

Jamie Peacock:
Metres Made ….. ….. ….. 146
Carries ….. ….. ….. 24
Offloads ….. ….. ….. 2

Tackles ….. ….. ….. 33
Missed Tackles ….. ….. ….. 5
Errors ….. ….. ….. 0
Penalties ….. ….. ….. 2

Metres Per Drive ….. ….. ….. 6.08
Tackling Efficency ….. ….. ….. 0.87

Ryan Bailey:
Metres Made ….. ….. 57
Carries ….. ….. 9
Offloads ….. ….. 0
KO's ...... ...... 1

Tackles ….. ….. 28
Missed Tackles ….. ….. 3
Errors ….. ….. 1
Penalties ….. ….. 1

Metres Per Drive ….. ….. 6.33
Tackling Efficency ….. ….. 0.90


Luke Burgess:
Metres Made ….. ….. ….. ….. 119
Carries ….. ….. ….. ….. 13
Offloads ….. ….. ….. ….. 1

Tackles ….. ….. ….. ….. 12
Missed Tackles ….. ….. ….. ….. 3
Errors ….. ….. ….. ….. 1
Penalties ….. ….. ….. ….. 0

Metres Per Drive ….. ….. ….. ….. 9.15
Tackling Efficency ….. ….. ….. ….. 0.80

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:12 pm  

think the throwing of the shirt shows how much he wants to play for leeds doesnt look right but 6you have too understand that being substited is not what he wanted so he showed that he want to play for leeds maybe the wrong way but i wouldnt jump on hes back

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:52 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

I have yet to find even a Saints fan who thinks that the challenge was illegal in any way.

No, but a lot of us think it should be because we would class it as a high tackle. However, the RFL doesn't think high tackles can be made with the shoulder, only the arm (although it could be said that the shoulder is part of the arm). The RFL deemed Fas to have ducked into the tackle, which kind of puts a different spin on a lot of high tackles.

From an opposition standpoint, Bailey makes Leeds look weak. You were losing and instead of skillfully fighting back (as so many in your team are capable of doing) you have Bailey acting like a d!ck. So the reports aren't full of stuff like just what a great game Burgess had (which he did) but instead the focus has been largely on Bailey's antics and the ensuing events. Is that what you really want?

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:55 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

No, but a lot of us think it should be because we would class it as a high tackle. However, the RFL doesn't think high tackles can be made with the shoulder, only the arm (although it could be said that the shoulder is part of the arm). The RFL deemed Fas to have ducked into the tackle, which kind of puts a different spin on a lot of high tackles.

From an opposition standpoint, Bailey makes Leeds look weak. You were losing and instead of skillfully fighting back (as so many in your team are capable of doing) you have Bailey acting like a d!ck. So the reports aren't full of stuff like just what a great game Burgess had (which he did) but instead the focus has been largely on Bailey's antics and the ensuing events. Is that what you really want?

We scored in the possesion after the indicdent, what does that tell you?

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:55 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

No, but a lot of us think it should be because we would class it as a high tackle. However, the RFL doesn't think high tackles can be made with the shoulder, only the arm (although it could be said that the shoulder is part of the arm). The RFL deemed Fas to have ducked into the tackle, which kind of puts a different spin on a lot of high tackles.

From an opposition standpoint, Bailey makes Leeds look weak. You were losing and instead of skillfully fighting back (as so many in your team are capable of doing) you have Bailey acting like a d!ck. So the reports aren't full of stuff like just what a great game Burgess had (which he did) but instead the focus has been largely on Bailey's antics and the ensuing events. Is that what you really want?

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:59 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

No, but a lot of us think it should be because we would class it as a high tackle. However, the RFL doesn't think high tackles can be made with the shoulder, only the arm (although it could be said that the shoulder is part of the arm). The RFL deemed Fas to have ducked into the tackle, which kind of puts a different spin on a lot of high tackles.

From an opposition standpoint, Bailey makes Leeds look weak. You were losing and instead of skillfully fighting back (as so many in your team are capable of doing) you have Bailey acting like a d!ck. So the reports aren't full of stuff like just what a great game Burgess had (which he did) but instead the focus has been largely on Bailey's antics and the ensuing events. Is that what you really want?

Words quite simply fail me sometimes, honest to God they really do!! 3 days on, after this topic has been discussed from every angle imaginable, and it's been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Bailey didn't do a thing wrong, we're still getting this..... Honestly, some people should be prevented by law from using Message Boards, for their own good!!

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:00 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

but instead the focus has been largely on Bailey's antics and the ensuing events. Is that what you really want?

The biggest culprit in the antics stakes weren't Bailey though was it?

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:04 pm  

HyperbolicRhino wrote:

Words quite simply fail me sometimes, honest to God they really do!! 3 days on, after this topic has been discussed from every angle imaginable, and it's been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Bailey didn't do a thing wrong, we're still getting this..... Honestly, some people should be prevented by law from using Message Boards, for their own good!!

I agree

: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:05 pm  

tvoc wrote:

The biggest culprit in the antics stakes weren't Bailey though was it?

he stayed out of it all, lit the touchpaper and walked


genius