Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:38 pm  

Jake the Peg wrote:

Must just be rovers they hate then. Can't say I they blame them

You are hereby on notice to be dropped from our proper squad for next week's Wakey home game, if you don't behave. I'll tell on ya to Stan.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:44 pm  

Pickering Red wrote:

You are hereby on notice to be dropped from our proper squad for next week's Wakey home game, if you don't behave. I'll tell on ya to Stan.

I only let 4 in down my wing this week

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:33 pm  

Confirmed in today's League Express that the tribunal saw angles if the incident that have not been publicly released.
Would have been useful for the RFL to make this clear so that everyone knew the decision wasn't based on the footage we all saw, which was clearly inconclusive.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:44 pm  

So why be so secret about it? And if so, was our club told about this 'new' evidence? I hope this evidence was sent to our club to assess.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:02 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

Confirmed in today's League Express that the tribunal saw angles if the incident that have not been publicly released.
Would have been useful for the RFL to make this clear so that everyone knew the decision wasn't based on the footage we all saw, which was clearly inconclusive.

Yes it would. Potentially makes a bit more sense. It'd be interesting to see them, but I doubt we will. Was it a long article? Were any of the other issues around process addressed?

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:21 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

Confirmed in today's League Express that the tribunal saw angles if the incident that have not been publicly released.
Would have been useful for the RFL to make this clear so that everyone knew the decision wasn't based on the footage we all saw, which was clearly inconclusive.

Nonsense.

What League Express actually said was ' The Boudebza tackle didn't look deliberate or reckless however the RFL tribunal members PERHAPS saw angles that wern't available to the rest of us.

RLE goes on to say 'The question is, if Shenton had not been injured and had got up to play the ball would Boudebza's tackle have been put on report with a suspension following? It's hard to believe it would have been.'

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:40 pm  

His Bobness wrote:

Nonsense.

What League Express actually said was ' The Boudebza tackle didn't look deliberate or reckless however the RFL tribunal members PERHAPS saw angles that wern't available to the rest of us.

RLE goes on to say 'The question is, if Shenton had not been injured and had got up to play the ball would Boudebza's tackle have been put on report with a suspension following? It's hard to believe it would have been.'

I think you need to work on your inference skills! If they didn't have different angles, it wouldn't even have been mentioned.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:57 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

I think you need to work on your inference skills! If they didn't have different angles, it wouldn't even have been mentioned.

So your going off a weekly league paper that prints that the rfl disciplinary panel 'perhaps' have an option for looking at a different angle?!.....my god, then it must be true.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:43 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

I think you need to work on your inference skills! If they didn't have different angles, it wouldn't even have been mentioned.

You said this was 'Confirmed' in League Express now I have given the actual account you have had to reduce this to 'inference'.

IMO although you have downgraded 'confirmed' to 'inference' the truth is you should downgrade again to 'fiction'.

Martyn Sadler made it quite clear on TalkSport that he thought the Boudebza verdict was a total travesty, the only explanation being if the RFL had unseen footage unseen by anyone else including him.

Re: Opener versus Cas Tigers : Wed Feb 17, 2016 7:39 am  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

Confirmed in today's League Express that the tribunal saw angles if the incident that have not been publicly released.
Would have been useful for the RFL to make this clear so that everyone knew the decision wasn't based on the footage we all saw, which was clearly inconclusive.

So the film from the grassy knoll is still to turn up.
As before...it doesn't exist....and as before your either a WUM a Cyclops or it appears now both.