Re: Stains v Cas : Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:35 am  

That try of Cunninghams would NOT have been scored if the ball had been played correctly as the defence would have been set.

you know mate Ive watched that play of the ball that your preaching on about five times and quite frankly i dont see anything wrong with it ! the guy regains his feet places the ball on the ground heels it back with his foot ! So what the fek did you see ?????????????????????????????????????

[Pemps]

Re: Stains v Cas : Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:45 am  

handrags wrote:

That try of Cunninghams would NOT have been scored if the ball had been played correctly as the defence would have been set.

you know mate Ive watched that play of the ball that your preaching on about five times and quite frankly i dont see anything wrong with it ! the guy regains his feet places the ball on the ground heels it back with his foot ! So what the fek did you see ?????????????????????????????????????

As much as I'm loathed to get involved in ridiculous petty squabbles, i pretty much agree with you.

Re: Stains v Cas : Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:22 am  

Fishsta wrote: As for Cunningham, I've never known anyone, EVER, punch a player in the face and fracture their eye socket and not only not get carded for it, but get away with it at the disciplinary. I see you're not averse to lies of your own then: http://wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2009/07/injury-update/

Fishsta wrote: As for Cunningham, I've never known anyone, EVER, punch a player in the face and fracture their eye socket and not only not get carded for it, but get away with it at the disciplinary. I see you're not averse to lies of your own then: http://wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2009/07/injury-update/

Re: Stains v Cas : Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:10 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

The game you refer to was on July 31st last year.

You must admit though, that was naughty from Tomkins.

Re: Stains v Cas : Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:14 am  

FearTheVee wrote: I see you're not averse to lies of your own then: http://wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2009/07/injury-update/ Ooof! Fishta, will that info loosen that stick that's up your ar5e?

FearTheVee wrote: I see you're not averse to lies of your own then: http://wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2009/07/injury-update/ Ooof! Fishta, will that info loosen that stick that's up your ar5e?

Re: Stains v Cas : Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:29 am  

Offside Monkey wrote:

You must admit though, that was naughty from Tomkins.

The problem that day was the referee not shouting held, Tomkins had every right to make that tackle.

Re: Stains v Cas : Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:33 am  

FearTheVee wrote: I see you're not averse to lies of your own then: http://wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2009/07/injury-update/ lol

FearTheVee wrote: I see you're not averse to lies of your own then: http://wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2009/07/injury-update/ lol

Re: Stains v Cas : Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:52 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

The problem that day was the referee not shouting held, Tomkins had every right to make that tackle.

Yes, he did.
However, the manner in which he attacked the side of the players knee was the concern. I'm sure if you aksed Sam about it, he'd admit it wasn't a very gracious bit of play and wasn't the best bit of judgement.
99% of the time rugby league's a man's game and (most of) the players follow a certain gentleman's conduct. The game's tough enough without finding easy ways to injure players (that incident could've caused worse injury than it did).
Imagine if a team (proabably leeds) started using a tactic were one tackler would hold the ball player stationary , then another would target the side of the knee like that. We'd see rules brought in like the ones to ban the chicken wing tackle.

I digress. Back to the thread.

Re: Stains v Cas : Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:59 am  

Offside Monkey wrote:

Yes, he did.
However, the manner in which he attacked the side of the players knee was the concern. I'm sure if you aksed Sam about it, he'd admit it wasn't a very gracious bit of play and wasn't the best bit of judgement.
99% of the time rugby league's a man's game and (most of) the players follow a certain gentleman's conduct. The game's tough enough without finding easy ways to injure players (that incident could've caused worse injury than it did).
Imagine if a team (proabably leeds) started using a tactic were one tackler would hold the ball player stationary , then another would target the side of the knee like that. We'd see rules brought in like the ones to ban the chicken wing tackle.

I digress. Back to the thread.

The bottom line is - had KC done that to a held up Sam Tomkins and injured his knee - there would have been WWIII on here. It was cheap.

Re: Stains v Cas : Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:00 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

The bottom line is - had KC done that to a held up Sam Tomkins and injured his knee .

Given KC's got about 8 stone on Tomkins, he probably would have.