Congratulations to the Rhinos

stutterdog · Post by **stutterdog** » Mon 12 Oct, 2009 11:55 pm

tyke bhoy wrote: cnosni wrote: Theres the conspiracy that the most hated team in SL has supplanted the RFL and the match officials with its own agents to achieve world wide RL supremacy.Bentham hates Cas anyway,ask any Cas fan.perhaps if the sight of the best team in SL at the moment upsets you,then perhaps it would be wise not to watch.Its a mans game ,thers always going to be argy bargy,if there wasnt then it would be rugby union. Well probably do this again next year. Your rail against the conspiracy theory isn't helped by the Rhino's own coach who on Look North tonight claimed that Eddie and Stevvo got the offside law wrong. Well unless only the Rhino's, their partners Leeds Met and the referrees Leeds Met have the responsibility of training are the only ones informed of a change in het law and interpretation of the law then he is correct. However for the wrong reason.Law14 exerpt from http://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/rugb ... 282%29.pdf (note the provenance) RFL wrote: A player is off side except when he is in his own ingoalif the ball touches, is touched, held or kicked, byone of his own team behind him. Although I have yet to find anything with adequate provenance the reference to both feet being behind the kicker is as a point of reference. MClennan's argument that Lee Smiths front foot was off the ground albeit over a yard in front of McGuire's leading foot and therefore is discounted is laughable as his rear foot was also at best level and certainly not behind McGuire. Also what point of reference is taken if, as quite likely in the definition of running, both feet were off the ground.I have also seen ridiculously the argument that had Smith been onside he would still have scored well maybe. But then had Brent Webb not used his knees to push Ade Gardener out of play he would still have scored too. Similar can be said of Sinfield's legal tackle which resulted in Eastmond hitting the corner flag inches before grounding to nulify a try (and Bentham got that correct by awarding a 20 metre restart (touch in goal) rather than a scrum defence however on the aforementioned argument he would have been justified in awarding a try cos he was only just in touchI can't believe that a lad like you,tyke Bhoy,born and bred a loiner would be so against Leeds RL beating a Lancashire club!

Post by **cnosni** » Tue 13 Oct, 2009 6:33 pm

tyke bhoy wrote: cnosni wrote: Theres the conspiracy that the most hated team in SL has supplanted the RFL and the match officials with its own agents to achieve world wide RL supremacy.Bentham hates Cas anyway,ask any Cas fan.perhaps if the sight of the best team in SL at the moment upsets you,then perhaps it would be wise not to watch.Its a mans game ,thers always going to be argy bargy,if there wasnt then it would be rugby union. Well probably do this again next year. Your rail against the conspiracy theory isn't helped by the Rhino's own coach who on Look North tonight claimed that Eddie and Stevvo got the offside law wrong. Well unless only the Rhino's, their partners Leeds Met and the referrees Leeds Met have the responsibility of training are the only ones informed of a change in het law and interpretation of the law then he is correct. However for the wrong reason.Law14 exerpt from http://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/rugb ... 282%29.pdf (note the provenance) RFL wrote: A player is off side except when he is in his own ingoalif the ball touches, is touched, held or kicked, byone of his own team behind him. Although I have yet to find anything with adequate provenance the reference to both feet being behind the kicker is as a point of reference. MClennan's argument that Lee Smiths front foot was off the ground albeit over a yard in front of McGuire's leading foot and therefore is discounted is laughable as his rear foot was also at best level and certainly not behind McGuire. Also what point of reference is taken if, as quite likely in the definition of running, both feet were off the ground.I have also seen ridiculously the argument that had Smith been onside he would still have scored well maybe. But then had Brent Webb not used his knees to push Ade Gardener out of play he would still have scored too. Similar can be said of Sinfield's legal tackle which resulted in Eastmond hitting the corner flag inches before grounding to nulify a try (and Bentham got that correct by awarding a 20 metre restart (touch in goal) rather than a scrum defence however on the aforementioned argument he would have been justified in awarding a try cos he was only just in touch Aha,so its Leeds Met then,the plot thickens.You reaaly have it in for Webby,cant think why.He is an excellent player and jolly nice chap to boot.We could go on all day about the offside,how you can judge from your tv screen that his foot was a yard in front of McGuire is beyond me,i cant see that and ive watched the game 3 times on Sky+Leeds were winning at that point,a very slim lead in a closely fought yet unenjoyable game,its the way SL has been going for a few seasons now.I suppose you could go on and on about all this,but the people who should have the biggest gripe about it are the Saints fans,who have been more than gracious (this year) at the Grand Final defeat.they accept that it was their own lack of attacking options that lost them the game.they seem more than happy with the fact that some tight decisions can go against you.Thats a good attitude to have,and its one i have adopted in the past with Leeds RL/Rhinos.

Post by **cnosni** » Tue 13 Oct, 2009 6:36 pm

Perhaps this is the real Brian McLennan,well in some peoples eyes

Post by **tyke bhoy** » Tue 13 Oct, 2009 10:03 pm

cnosni wrote: You reaaly have it in for Webby,cant think why.He is an excellent player and jolly nice chap to boot Yes I am sure he tells you that in the most intimate moments but he is a thug

Post by **tyke bhoy** » Tue 13 Oct, 2009 10:09 pm

cnosni wrote: We could go on all day about the offside,how you can judge from your tv screen that his foot was a yard in front of McGuire is beyond me,i cant see that and ive watched the game 3 times on Sky+ You have accused me of bias clouding judgement. Unhelpfully for you and Bentham the groundstaff at Old trafford had "UNHELPFULLY" marked some lines across the pitch. They also had "Unhelpfully" manicured the pitch with stripes in the grass. When you watched sky+ did you notice where the Rhino players lined up after the first replay?? I'll give you a clue it was to defend the resultant penalty.

Post by **tyke bhoy** » Tue 13 Oct, 2009 10:13 pm

cnosni wrote: Leeds were winning at that point,a very slim lead in a closely fought yet unenjoyable game,its the way SL has been going for a few seasons now. A lead gained when Leulai bounced the ball in front of the posts when Cunningham brushed by. I actually didn't agree with the rule change on stripping because it opened up gamemanship which Leulai exploited. Ganson missed Peacock stripping the ball in a three on one tackle. Consistency was not observed.

Post by **tyke bhoy** » Tue 13 Oct, 2009 10:15 pm

cnosni wrote: Thats a good attitude to have,and its one i have adopted in the past with Leeds RL/Rhinos. I doubt you would have had to do so within the living memory of the average mental age of a Rhino's fan

Post by **tyke bhoy** » Tue 13 Oct, 2009 10:25 pm

stutterdog wrote: I can't believe that a lad like you,tyke Bhoy,born and bred a loiner would be so against Leeds RL beating a Lancashire club! Stutterdog I was born to a family from South of the river which obviously makes a difference in fair play.As you will notice from the arena thread I am bemoaning a travesty of justice caused by political expediency. In this case I am bemoaning a travesty of justice caused, I hope, by the incompetence of an individual. Stress "I hope" but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence

Post by **tyke bhoy** » Tue 13 Oct, 2009 10:36 pm

tyke bhoy wrote: cnosni wrote: You reaaly have it in for Webby,cant think why.He is an excellent player and jolly nice chap to boot Yes I am sure he tells you that in the most intimate moments but he is a thug BTW before anyone thinks this is beyond the pale you haven't seen more than a couple of previous and later edited attacks this individual has launched on people on this site who disagree with his straight and very narrow version of truth

grumpytramp · Post by **grumpytramp** » Tue 13 Oct, 2009 11:56 pm

Jinx, I wish I had never bothered ........... its enough being bombarded with the pro-Celtic/pro-Rangers nonsense up here 24/7 without having to wade through more paranoia here (though hats off to Cnosni ....... that made me laugh)