: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:15 am  

Rob Wire wrote:

Call it negative if you want as it doesn`t bother me, i`ll just say it as i see it.

That's ok. That is all we are doing.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:21 am  

I mentioned in a earlier post that it wasn't as bad as I first thought after watching the TV replay. A couple of errors turned the game and we then struggled for possession which Sintellins took full advantage of (as we know they can).

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:31 am  

getdownmonkeyman wrote:

Rob, I will never understand your comments about games being longer. They are 80 minutes long and that is it, if the game would have been played for a further thirty minutes, would thaey have scored twice as many points?

I really don't get it.

Its like when ive heard Eddie Hemmings say in the past that the hooter will have come as a welcome relief to side A, thats how i viewed the final hooter at saints because "IF" and i`m using that as a hypothetical scenario their had been a further 15 mins left on the clock then it could have been embarrassing as saints looked like they could score from each set of 6 towards the end.

Anyway ive said all i wanted too on this subject.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:00 pm  

Lefty wrote:

Hooray. I agree. Gutted at first but in the cold light of day we were very good indeed.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:21 pm  

getdownmonkeyman wrote:

The more I think about King, the more of an enigma he becomes.

He played his part in one of the meanest defences in the NRL, yet looks a million light years away from that player. Could it be the the almost blitz like defence suits him far more than our sliding, slower tempo line speed?

By this I mean he hits the tackler front on, no need to keep sliding waiting for his opposite nu,ber to receive the ball.

It is quite the conundrum.

I'm not very well up on rugby tactics, in fact I haven't the slightest to be honest. But when I watched the Storm, I always thought King was relatively weak in defence, he'd often leave his winger struggling and gaps for the opposite centre to run into. The thing is, he had Turner as his winger and Hoffman as his second row, both quality players in all aspects.

But even so, King must have had something in defence which got him into that side, you don't play for Australia, NSW and be a key player for the GF winning Storm if you've not got something, since he's been with us, people have strolled through since game 1 (was it Hall who bagged two?).

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:25 pm  

Bobby_Peru wrote:

IMO we were still right in the game until that berk of referee gave the knock-on against Briers when he was CLEARLY not playing at the ball with his leading arm and was concentrating on the tackle.
If this 'penalty' hadn't been given the resulting play would have had us in excellent ball position on the half way line.

Can someone explain the ruling on this? Last year Cullen left on the back of a similar decision which resulted in a Cas try, and obviously Friday's similar incident cost us a valuable try. But Lee Gilmour seemed to get away with another charge down, ball played the man scenario, in the Challenge Cup final last year where he blatantly held his arms up to do so.

Any chance of sharing your wisdom with us, Dom?

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:31 pm  

The Wood wrote:

Can someone explain the ruling on this? Last year Cullen left on the back of a similar decision which resulted in a Cas try, and obviously Friday's similar incident cost us a valuable try. But Lee Gilmour seemed to get away with another charge down, ball played the man scenario, in the Challenge Cup final last year where he blatantly held his arms up to do so.

Any chance of sharing your wisdom with us, Dom?

It didn't mate. Grix scored a try, the video ref didn't give it, at that time we led something like 34-18 and that would have been 40 say, we had all the momentum and the Castleford heads were down. In the end, some enterprising rugby & Monaghan intercepted pass later, Cull was a gonner.

I think since, the officials have realised that they got that one wrong, a bit like the obstruction 'no try' at Wigan when we were dominating early on.

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:59 pm  

gary numan wrote:

:shock:

Have you watched the game since?

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:23 pm  

"in the cold light of day we were very good indeed" Are you suggesting that the six tries we conceeded in the last 30 mins was us being very good?

: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:20 pm  

It could of been a hell of alot worse, considering that we only really had one pre-season friendly before the match.