[urlhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clotch[/url

Well before it had that definition ,it was if you conducted yourelf in a public house in a manner unacceptable to the Landlord he would clotch you.I.E no longer allowed on the premises

My understanding is that he was only ruled out on the day. Which day are you saying he was ruled out?

I too was never clotched but should have been as I was under age for quite some time

Never heard of that one. We had another word for that.



"Clotched" was used in the 50's & 60's as per lionamour87 decription and below:

"A dialect word you used to hear in Morley was "clotched" meaning barred as in "'es clotched from t'Seccy" - he's banned from the Sycamore (they can ban me anytime they like the beer's cr4p in there these days) I think the word may be related to cloche, which I believe is a cover gardeners use to protect tender plants. "
[urlhttp://www.secretleeds.com/forum/Messages.aspx?ThreadID=659&StartAtMessage=250[/url

Either way Rhinoms is right about Watkins not warming up and BJB being 18th man on the day.

Ive clicked on that link yet,but I bet it was from Trojan

I've not read all this thread so not sure if it's the right one to offer congratulations but I will anyway

Well done on becoming World Champions on Friday. I've been unfortunate enough to watch all of your recent Grand Final victories and have to admit that Leeds are a great side with some absolute champion players

The victory was richly deserved and you did the English game proud

The post match comments from Brian Mc stated he was ruled out "late in the week" that to me indicates Thursday or Friday and like i said he didn't even make the 18 warming up.

Thankyou I know that now LEEDS and SAINTS fans have mutual respect.

But the exact time of Watkins withdrawal was not the point. It was that this was a late change which together with the Smith injury restricted the coaches interchange plans and was a factor in McShane remaining on the bench.

He was named in the squad on the Thursday it was my understanding that the earliest news of his withdrawal was late afternoon on the Saturday. But the exact timing of his withdrawal was not the issue. The fact we had a late injury to Watkins plus Smith in the game must have restricted the coaches original interchange plans for the original named squad. Hence my use of "injuries" in the plural!

The Watkins argument is on pretty thin ice even for you Juan!

This is only from memory, but wasn't our last sub (against Wigan) Griff coming back on for Kylie with 10 mins to play? If so why not let Mac have run out? Then just shuffle the pack a little. It wouldn't have made a difference.

If "it wouldn't have made a difference" then perhaps that is why our successful coaches didn't do it!

No changes with 10 to play would have made a difference.

But to McShane, may have made the coach ride home more bearable.

You have done a U turn. You said "It wouldn't have made a difference" make your mind up!

Blowing with the breeze again BB

Did you take that? That's a brilliant photo.

The Manly game showed that with McShane on the major feature was giving Burrow space to play half and run at a tired defence.

The Wigan game, whilst almost just out of reach, was never completely out of reach, despite their dominance, bringing McShane on would have made a difference if only because it would have given Burrow time and space at half back.

Then again, selecting Burrow there from the outset wouldn't be a bad idea but that is a whole different discussion.

Rumours of Paul McShane being frozen out, asking for transfers etc appear to have been greatly exaggerated by some on this board don't they?

Thought he had a good game when he came on. His decision making and kicking from dummy half on a couple of occasions showed a cool head under pressure, which is good to see in a player with little experience of life at that level.

There are some reactionary fekkwitts hat is for sure.

the board would improve if one or two went into[i exile[/i.

(nant) wich ones do you mean?

One of them has a predilection for young boys.......to be selected ni the team.

sadly not

Incorrect as others have said. Do you have a problem telling Jones-Bishop and Watkins apart? Jones-Bishop is the one in the headgear.



As the entire premise of this observation has proven to be worthless perhaps you'd care to start again. To address the last part though was it really a triumph of coaching to under utilise his available substitutions in that situation. If as you suggest he was keeping back interchanges to rotate the big forwards he didn't even manage to do that very well.




Not only have you accepted it but you've added to it with some of your own re the imaginary warm-up incident.

The injury to Watkins (whenever it occurred) should have had little bearing on the use of McShane during the match and cannot be used as a contributing factor. Even if it had occurred during the warm up Leeds had Clarkson to step up as a back-rower covering the back rower covering centre, maintaining the set formula. So we are back to the injury to Smith alone and how that prevented McShane taking his role in the pre-game plan. The bench had a hooker - capable of covering half back - a second row and two props, so nothing unusual there to work around. Good utillity and options.

Playing Burrow V Wigan didn't bear that much fruit considering McShane was available but unused on the bench and his introduction helped Leeds and Burrow be more effective V Manly in the next game.

If his pre-game intention was to introduce McShane, as surely it was, why did it get blown off co in the 25th minute. There was even the half-time interval to fix a new plan for the second half. Was it then a triumph of coaching to under utilise his available substitutions?

When coaches like to talk about the 1%ers how about the minus 20%ers from the Wigan game, instead of issueing explanations that fall over with the first breath of wind.

Seems like a good strategy. It's what their mods do when they're incapable of replying to valid criticism.
For the benefit of Rhinos fans here's the post you won't see on their board..well not any more.


Except it never really was a thread about Leeds winning the WCC was it... It was more like yet another thread about how crap/arrogant/inferior Leeds are and how much you all hate them. Your obsession here is evidenced by your own username..a cheap gloaty sort of contrivance used mainly by fans of lower intelligence who just can't help 'rubbing it in'.


Yes, I returned from my ban. It was self-imposed and I didn't set a time limit. If responding to a post that rejoices in seeing a player reduced to hobbling about on crutches is a crime then I'm guilty. That sentiment is repeated in this thread. Sorry you see this as a 'derailment'. I don't.


Had you not locked the WCC thread in such a cowardly manner I might not feel so atritional about this, but frankly you behave like a playground bully screaming "It's my ball and if you don't play my way I'm taking it home"