Haven;t seen it announced anywhere

Bentham.

Bentham, Video Referee is Ben Thaler.

nnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[url=http://viewtopic.php?t=399346&start=60Phil Bentham, St Helens V Leeds virgin[/url

Better than Saint Steve!

True

He'll make a huge number of glaring errors thus resulting in some booing, ironic cheers and general abuse......... and then Sky+ will reveal the truth

He will give one team all the pens in 1st half then reverse it in 2nd half.

After Smith's display last week, leaving his gob off the whistle for most of the game, I have re-newed confidence in our wonderful officials.

I also think Gordon Brown is doing an amazing job and I'm gonna start smoking because I think all this 'lung cancer' business is just sheer nonsense.

Watch Diskin get penalised for nothing again this week

When did this happen?

Just looked at your 2009 predictions HH, do you still think Wire will get that high

Castleford away last season in the game after the WCC, IIRC.

No but that's what I predicted so I dont see it as right to change it.



As I said I can now see a GF of Leeds vs Hull, Rovers or Hudds.

From what I remember the first 1 hit the chest and bounced up so it was a high tackle and the 2nd deffinately was.

Not the way I remember it. The first one was entirely legal.

Being penalised unfairly maybe then contributed to the second immediately after on Korkidas where this time he was rightly penalised and went on to receive a 1 game ban at the judiciary.

Although my memory is failing me today (and my ability to work out simple math) i'm sure that he made contact with the ball and the his arm bounced up to the face. Either way he still shouldnt have gone charging in to the next tackle like he did. Totally unproffesional.

Is this Bentham we're on about now or are we still discussing Diskin's legitimate first tackle which was not deserving of a penalty, no way and no how, again IIRC.

But you are taught as kids to just get on with the game if the ref gives a "poor" decision. Now a guy who is payed a decent amount of money for playing the same game should know better than to try to "prove a point" in the very next tackle. Regardless of the decision.

I'm sure the point he was trying to prove was that 'I sat you on your a[irs[/ie the first time and Ill do it again the second time.' Unfortunately the second time was with an illegal challenge that copped a ban which Leeds decided not to appeal against. It probably weren't deliberate though, just misjudged.

Personally i'd have give him more if he had appealed and I think Leeds realised this. ATEOTD he put in a wreckless tackle because he was annoyed at the previous decision (regardless of it's legality) and was lucky not to be sent off on the pitch.

The [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/about/disciplinary_item.php?id=98player[/url saw it differently but no surprises there.

The first tackle was legal though and had it not been surely this would have been discussed by the Disciplinary Committee that decided to ban him for the second?

Why would it be discussed though as it was a separate incident? If anything it would have hindered his defence as he would be admitting to "seeking revenge" by using the previous tackle as motivation.

If we win the Saints fans ...... (delete as applicable)

"He missed all those forward passes"
"Leeds were laying on"
"They were always offside"
"The video ref shoulda given that try"
"How did he miss that crossing"
"He should be banned for 5 matches for that"