Re: Unacceptable bias : Wed May 04, 2011 9:09 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

I don't think so. Think of it this way had Whiting stood completely outside the field of play and picked the ball up it would have been head and feed to Hull.

It was just a bad error from the touchjudge / referee and a costly one for Hull.

On the bias. Clarke, Wells, Carney, McDermott and O'Connor all thought that the last penalty was the wrong decision.

Are they ALL biased against Saints?

They are all wrong. He jumped into Ashe because he got his jump wrong, that's a penalty every time it happens near the try line and very, very rarely does Clarke decry the penalty being given.

I thought Clarke showed a lot of anti Saints bias on the commentary, but that's become a norm since your flirt with relegation a few years back, when his balanced commentary went out of the window and he started calling Wigan 'we' again.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Wed May 04, 2011 10:26 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote: A friend called me tonight and he said he would check with a referee he knows to see if that is true. There is no doubt however that Whitings feet were on the line when he caught the ball. The other school of thought is that the rule was changed a few years ago to prevent players just straddling the line and scooping the ball out and claiming the advantage. That maybe the reason for Saints head and feed. I'll post on here if he gets back to me. Hope this clarifies it all: http://www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_ ... uch_ingoal "The ball is in touch when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch line or the ground beyond the touch line or any object on or outside the touch line except when a player, tackled in the field of play, steps into touch as he regains his feet in which case he shall play the ball in the field of play." Didn't matter that Whitings foot was on the line before or after he caught it. Correct decision by the TJ - scrum to Saints.

Rogues Gallery wrote: A friend called me tonight and he said he would check with a referee he knows to see if that is true. There is no doubt however that Whitings feet were on the line when he caught the ball. The other school of thought is that the rule was changed a few years ago to prevent players just straddling the line and scooping the ball out and claiming the advantage. That maybe the reason for Saints head and feed. I'll post on here if he gets back to me. Hope this clarifies it all: http://www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_ ... uch_ingoal "The ball is in touch when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch line or the ground beyond the touch line or any object on or outside the touch line except when a player, tackled in the field of play, steps into touch as he regains his feet in which case he shall play the ball in the field of play." Didn't matter that Whitings foot was on the line before or after he caught it. Correct decision by the TJ - scrum to Saints.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Wed May 04, 2011 11:24 pm  

Love the irony of this thread. The only unacceptable bias on Monday was that shown towards St Helens by a certain Mr 'St Helens' Ganson!

Re: Unacceptable bias : Wed May 04, 2011 11:48 pm  

Phil Clarke can be a bit of a w%nker at times, but i think they all do a great job.
its good they dont agree on things and argue, and have a laugh.

must say clarkey stands out as the worse for bias, and he does tend to get on my tits sometimes,
i much prefer carney, and wells does a great job too.
clarkey seems to overemphasize some things going way over the top.
all in all though he doesnt offend me enough that I would want him sacked.

eddie and stevo are always getting slagged off, but who would you have replace them?
They both love the sport, talk passionately about it and I for one would miss either 1 of them if they retired.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 7:17 am  

No1 Saint wrote:

It's called trolling and he's good at it.

Rogues = "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"

Isn't that against the AUP? AGAIN.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 8:44 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

A friend called me tonight and he said he would check with a referee he knows to see if that is true. There is no doubt however that Whitings feet were on the line when he caught the ball.

The other school of thought is that the rule was changed a few years ago to prevent players just straddling the line and scooping the ball out and claiming the advantage. That maybe the reason for Saints head and feed.

I'll post on here if he gets back to me.

Yes, yes, yes we know what you mean. Every single win we've ever had has been crooked. We haven't deserved any of our numerous trophies over the past fifteen years and have only won because of refs and us breaking the rules. How we ever live with ourselves knowing that I don't know but we do. It's the kind of thing we just have to do to win a match. Without favourable breaks or biased refereeing we'd be sitting at the bottom of the Cooperative Championship, if we were lucky.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 8:53 am  

McClennan wrote:

Yes, yes, yes we know what you mean. Every single win we've ever had has been crooked. We haven't deserved any of our numerous trophies over the past fifteen years and have only won because of refs and us breaking the rules. How we ever live with ourselves knowing that I don't know but we do. It's the kind of thing we just have to do to win a match. Without favourable breaks or biased refereeing we'd be sitting at the bottom of the Cooperative Championship, if we were lucky.

I admire honesty in a person. Thanks for your admission and confession. For your penance you will now have to admit your great love of Shaun Edwards.

Hopefully I'll get the answer on the Whiting issue tonight.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 9:00 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

I admire honesty in a person. Thanks for your admission and confession. For your penance you will now have to admit your great love of Shaun Edwards.

Hopefully I'll get the answer on the Whiting issue tonight.

Read Page 5 of this thread. The rule is there!! You can then apologise for calling it the worst decision of the match.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 9:24 am  

mistermoo wrote:

Read Page 5 of this thread. The rule is there!! You can then apologise for calling it the worst decision of the match.

No, I've just had it confirmed by a professional referee. It should have been head and feed to Hull. The straddle rule only applies to to a rolling/bouncing ball when the player straddles the dead ball line. It does not apply to the touchline.

Therefore it was a wrong decision, and one that "probably" cost Hull the game as Roby scored direct from the scrum and got Saints back into the game.

Re: Unacceptable bias : Thu May 05, 2011 9:32 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

No, I've just had it confirmed by a professional referee. It should have been head and feed to Hull. The straddle rule only applies to to a rolling/bouncing ball when the player straddles the dead ball line. It does not apply to the touchline.

Therefore it was a wrong decision, and one that "probably" cost Hull the game as Roby scored direct from the scrum and got Saints back into the game.

Swings and roundabouts eh? Wigan's american football impressions on Good Friday "probably" cost us the game as well.