Indeed. But having made one rick, Sheriffe took almost everything that was thrown at him with some steepling kicks, yet due to his howlers (bad, true) all these seem to be forgotten. Why, the kick by the touchline, which he had no choice but to catch and then get instantly pushed in touch, the guy behind me was having a go at Sheriffe for that! WTF was he supposed to do? Great kick, perfect de-fuse under pressure, applause all round.


I agree, but only to an extent. Our kicking game is, mostly, one of the poorest on display. I don't know why, seeing as we have players who have done well elsewhere in the role, but really, almost all our kicks were gash, and made to look worse by Leeds' kicks, all of which severely tested us all day.

Still though, SL being a game of momentum and all that, I reckon had we not bombed the Reardon chance, and of course we should have been way ahead given the appalling decisions for Leeds' forward-passes try, and the nero incident, we would have had every chance of winning the game. that is not complaining, however. No ref is perfect, they all miss things, and Leeds got the rub of the green with the majority of debatable calls; and as for howlers like Reardon's, well, you will tend to lose (and deservedly so) if you fritter away gilt-edged tries against dangerous opposition.

It is stating the obvious to say we will be better when Langley (esp), Orford and Kearney return but the truth is that with the squad we put out yesterday, this time last year most of our critics and in-house detractors would have expected a right towelling, not a narrow defeat. They would have expected a shambolic effort, not a well-organised, hard-slog 80 minutes of good quality attack and defence, individual ricks aside.

And at this stage of the season they would certainly not have expected us to be, as we are level on points with Leeds, who are being held up as some sort of shining beacon to be aspired to in some myopic quarters, yet needed that narrow win to draw level with the Bulls.

Absolutely, that's why the "Oh, it even itself out over a game/season" comments annoy me so much. If those wrong decisions had gone our way in the 1st half, it would have been a different second half. Going into the break 12 points up, in the ascendancy, it would have been a better second half. So no, they don't even themselves out.

And for example, next week, in knock out rugby, a poor decision can end your cup run. That's not going to even itself out is it?

Thought it was a good show from your players TBH. To go into a game like that missing two key playmakers always puts you on the backfoot. The lack of composure comes off the back of missing those players. Although Sykes will work his nuts off for you at SO he clearly doesn't have the quality of Orford and doesn't have the experience in that position.

Like I said, good show from your guys. Here's to a Leeds V Bradford CC Semi-Final!

I think that to say Leeds got the rub of the gren overall is very harsh. The first try was from an obvious forward pass, but none of the others were. To say that Eastwood's pass to McGuire for his third try was forward, as some have, is laughable.

The Nero no-try was a 50-50 for me... I can see why it was disallowed, but it could just as easily have been allowed. As has been mentioned earlier, the moment he touched Donald, by the letter of the law, he infringed with him when he didn't have the ball, regardless of the amount of force used. Whether the law used in this case is a good one or not is another issue, the moment contact was made (when it didn't need to be made) the video ref was put into a position where he didn't have much choice. The McGuire no try was also a 50-50 - I've seen tries with far less downward pressure given before (and even tries with zero downward pressure - in fact with the ball nowhere near the ground - as per the try Saints got against Salford last week thanks to Saint Steve giving them benefit of the doubt!) but at the same time I can see where there was doubt on the video ref's part.

So, 1 decision against the Bulls (Leeds' first try) and two marginals - one of which went their way, the other didn't.

Then factor in the fact that Leeds were twice pulled up for forward passes from Eastwood, neither of which looked forward in my opinion (back in his prime Robbie Paul threw passes like that out all day long and never got pulled for it - Bradford fans didn't seem to be complaining much at the time!) one of which would have put McGuire clear, with a one on one with Halley (I think?) which, as was shown in the 2nd half, would have had every chance of resulting in a try, and one which definitely would have created a try for Ryan Hall.

So, one big call aganist Bradford, but two against Leeds. Overall, it worked out fairly even - if anything in Bradford's favour. Add the injury problems Leeds had in the second half, and to say that Bradford were more unlucky than Leeds over the whole match is stretching it a bit!

Good to see some more sensible posts on here this morning than there were in the immediate aftermath last night though! One of the major differences for me was that Leeds' kicking game was very effective, whereas Bradford's became more and more predictable and unthreatening as the game went on. I know you had a makeshift halfback partnership, but I would rather see a player try something different and fail than try nothing at all - in the second half almost every one of Sykes' kicks was identical, and Leeds were able to either let them run dead, or run them back under little to no pressure.

It was to Bradford's credit that they defended pretty well throughout, otherwise the winning margin could have been a lot higher. At least one, if not two new wingers is a big priority for you next year!

I really can't be bothered reading all the comments, so I'll just give my two penneth.

First half, we were probably the better side, albeit it was close. Couple of poor calls went our way (blatant forward pass on first Leeds try and non-existant "push" from Nero) but overall not too bad.
Second half, we were tactically outclassed. Leeds showed exactly what we should have been doing the entire first half and constantly put the bombs up where our winger was going to be struggling with the sun in his eyes. Why the hell we never did that in the first half, I still don't know. It was a perfect tactic which worked every time and we had no answer to it. As a consequence, our players heads went down and we lost all momentum.
We missed the organisation that Orford and Kearney bring and we desperately missed Godwin when he was off the field (Wagga was easily our most dangerous player).
The video ref decision was evened out with McGuire's touchdown being disallowed when it should have been given.

Overall a fair scoreline I thought. We missed the organiser and we were beaten by superior tactics.

Also, had Reardon taken that try towards the end of the first half, it could have been a different game. There were way too many pointless errors (our completion rate can't have been good) and you just can't afford to do that against a side like Leeds.

Yep, said the same in the Sheriffe thread. He handled the hardest of the lot very well but had nowhere to go but touch. Was our resident numpty the bloke behind you?

That said the first bomb he dropped was the easiest and it opened the floodgates as Sinfield and McGuire never left him alone after that.




Our kicking game seemed to get worse as the game wore on with our kicks simply allowing Leeds to take a 20m tap. As you say Sykes can kick the ball but his rugby brain leaves a bit to be desired. Not having Orford made a big difference in this area. Not sure what the Bulls plan for the kicking game was but I'm sure McNamara didn't issue instructions to tamely boot the ball dead after each set.



If we'd taken all our chances it may have all been different. However as you say you can't afford to blow chances like Reardon's.



You're preaching to the converted here.



You're right, though I do think that Leeds have more potential for improvement than us even taking into account missing players on both sides.

Some rambling rambles:
Even though there were plenty of incidents in the first half I thought it was poor quality, especially Leeds. Why Macca chose not to give one of his legendary half-time motivational chats escapes me. As the game wore on it reminded me of Bradford of the last few years with no creative force, apart from occasional at hooker. At least with Deacon you feared his kicking near the line.
To say Leeds had more of any questionable decisions is cheap. Sure the first ccouple went against Bradford, but Nero committed an offence by the letter of thelaw however you struggle to find a sane person who would say it was harsh if it had been given. Sinfiield's pass was slightly forward without doubt, but that doesn't stop Bradford tackling to prevent the try. After that 3 try or try scoring opportunities were called back, none of which I agreed with, but as Phil Clarke said, he is yet to see a player who doesn't make mistakes. McGuire's disallowed thrid try was a try to JJB, if not McGuire, as the ball went back anyhow.
In the hottest day in Odsal memeory Leeds played with 1 sub & endured the conditions better
Leeds had arguably more better quality players out but Bradford missed their, arguably, best 3 players more.

Haven't seen the game yet but will watch closely when I get my hands on the DVD. From what I've been told HyperbolicRhino's account seems more accurate than all this talk of the referee turning the game against Bradford. Sounds like ME was right about the ref being poor for both sides.

I'd agree with that but I'd add that you failed to put pressure on our kickers (as pointed out by someone earlier - Bullseye I think). Sinfield and McGuire are both good kickers, but only if given the space to do so. Under pressure they can both be made to look ordinary in this department. Having said that, it's much less easy to apply pressure when your team's on the back foot which yours was for much of the second half.

Sam, you're an oasis of common sense amidst a desert of idiocy on this thread. I'll not occupy the same high road and will touch upon the officials later.

Both teams were missing quality, key players. There's no mileage to be gained for either set of supporters there. Leeds suffered greater disruption through missing players during the game.

Our superior pace showed again. As the Sky team opined when I watched later that night, Leeds can score from anywhere but you felt the Bulls needed to be near the line to do so (see Kirke on Sykes). Also, we were simply more clinical and smarter with the game. Our use of the high kick in the 2nd half when the sun was to our advantage was in sharp contrast to the Bulls abject failure to utilise that advantage in the first.

I thought our defence was very tenacious for the 2nd week running and overall, that was the key.

The contentious stuff:

The Sinfield to Delaney pass for our first try was not forward, IMO. It was a peach of a pass. He passes before the white line and it's received at the same point. The call was close and marginal, at best, either way. That it has occupied the minds of so many of your supporters during the game and since is further evidence of this irrational obsession your less rational/intelligent posters have gained with the direction of Leeds passes. The irony that it comes during a game when the referee chalked of a legitimate Leeds try with a poor call on a forward pass and two other try scoring opportunities seems lost on the Bulls fans. That some of the Bulls fans, who have now overtaken the Saints Pop Stand occupants as the most myopic of "forward" chanting fools in the game, are still not satisfied with the influence they exerted over a weak referee is laughable. Did you get the irony in the Leeds fans mocking you with constant cries of "forward"?

The nero "Push" was a soft call in our favour. That said, he shouldn't have laid hands on the player. I'd have been upset if a decision like that had gone against us but I'd have also been upset at the stupidity of our player for placing hands on the defender.

The McGuire, crab-like, no try, was an example of your team getting a massive slice of luck so these things do even themselves out.

You played well but you were also well out played in the second half. Your wingers couldn't take the chances created for them and your kickers couldn't take advantage when the elements were in their favour. The referees display and any alleged leaning to either side had nothing to do with the outcome.

There were a handful of calls that could have gone either way, you only get one chance to call a forward pass & I admit to initially thinking Sinfield's pass was level. The others that were referred to the video ref were effectively out of his hands. Silverwood might have made a one error missing a forward pass, the others could all have been called either way. That was far less than most players who have to make a fraction of the decisions the ref has to make. Blaming the ref is a cheap excuse, from either side.

Er...most of us have said that the ref (and the blind touchie and the vidref) was bad for both sides.

The only real debate, if such there is, is whether he was more bad for us first half - and whether that did more damage to us cos it messed with players' heads - and more bad for Leeds second half. I tend to subscribe to that view and, listening to half-time discussion amongst the massed ranks of pee-ers, the general mood (rightly or wrongly) was seething with anger against Silverwood. FWIW.

But Silverwood never dropped the ball several times on Leeds' line or watched as Maguire skipped past him or left his wingers exposed to high kicks and chasing hordes. The extra bit of class that Leeds had on display made the difference there, as quite a few have observed?

ATEOTD Sadler in LE probably has it right IMO (shock horror!) when he concluded that our absentees were rather more crucial to us than Leeds' were to them, and the result maybe reflected at least in part a combination of that and the respective costs of the teams out on the park. I thought we certainly showed no lack of effort or desire, but were a bit lacking in composure and completion. Leeds, by contrast, were a bit more composed and completed clinically IMO, and defended outstandingly in the second half. For those reasons, they deserved to win.

Adey, did you really just write that gibberish?

I am surprised. It's gibberish.


It's worth nothing as it's nothing more than ill informed bias.


Agreed.

With respect to Sadler and you, that is garbage. You were missing your scrum half, so were we. You were missing your full back, so were we. You were missing a quality back rower, so were we. We were also missing the England captain and our best front rower. This is without mentioning that we spent the entire second half with one sub due to in game injuries and that one sub was a guy who had left the field with concussion at the start of the first half. So I think using the absentees excuse is simply that. An excuse and one that doesn't bear scrutiny.

Agreed.

I'd say given the comparitive quality in both squads that Leeds were able to cope with their absentees far more easily than us. They have far more depth and quality and it showed.

So ner!

While you might find someone making "excuses" it wouldn't be most of the regulars on here. FYI we don't care whether Leeds play their Under-8s (whom we would definitely have beaten), or had a squad of 17 eight-foot tall Olympic sprint champion ninjas, we discuss the Bulls on here. And with Orford, Kearney and Langley we would have enough to beat you. For a sensible enough chap, it is unexpectedly dumb of you to suggest reasonable and inevitable discussions of the effect of our absentees are "excuses".

That's something that has crept into most 'high level' sports more & more. When I started playing/going in the 80s you always had the odd obsessed nutter, who usually stood near the dug-outs, & shouted obscenities at the ref continually. Now every big man seems to want to be more abusive than the next so he can look round to show how hard he is. It's the worst part of our game for me.

really? It wouldn't be "most" of them? A cursory read of this thread might suggest otherwise. I accept, there are a few exceptions to the rule, but don't accept it to be most. I am sorry, but relying upon your absentees whilst choosing to ignore ours, or those we suffered during the game, is excuse making of the highest order and you appear to be about to delve into it.

On this thread you discuss the Bulls, the officials and your opponents.

Really? What happened at Easter then?

Not at all and it's not unexpectedly dumb of you to be so esoteric as to think the Bulls absentees can be considered in isolation of their opponents or that the presence of those absentees would guarantee a victory. After all, lets not forget that even world beaters like Kearney, Orford and Langley would have to overcame those nasty, Leeds favouring officials and the barrage of Leeds forwaaaaaard passes.

That's right, and what I took Adey to be saying as well.

It was. And, it would seem, Sadler. Shame Gareth chose to ridicule it, and some other opinions too, just because he disagrees with them. Well beneath his usual standards, and very disappointing.

I agree, and its wrong. Except this had nothing to do with people being abusive or shouting obscenities at the match. It was the general consensus of a lot of unconnected, ordinary fans, talking perfectly coherently if somewhat crossly while queuing up for a pee.

And it was also significant that some of those near me, who rarely berate the officials and (usually correctly, as again they did yesterday) identify what mistakes we made to lead up to the incident/s, were very unhappy with a number of the first half decisions (or non-decisions, like not going to the screen).

And, for the benefit of Gareth, I merely reported what I heard, the same "ill-informed bias" as some reading this thread might feel they discern in his own disparaging post.

My opinion:

I actually think Bradford got the rub of the green in most decisions.

Sinfields pass may have been forward, but it made no difference to how Bradford defended that particular play. Not saying it should have been given, but it should have been defended better anyway

Mcguire likely had two tries called off, one a break away forward pass which was laughable, on the other he clearly got the ball down with an outstanding bit of skill

Hall scored a try- where the hell the forward pass was in that one i have no idea, there were two passes, both clearly backwards (not even flat, backwards)

Nero's was a no try, he pushed him, not a lot but he did it. The rules say it was no try, its harsh but thems the rules.

personally i thought bradford were poor, first half both teams were awful, lots of dropped ball, poor defence, and dumb play. In the 2nd half leeds stepped it up a notch Bradford didnt. Thats why Leeds won.

A couple of things i noticed from a bradford point of view,

The Sykes chase down. Yes he was caught by Kirke, and yes that is funny. What Bradford shouldnt be laughing at is there was no Bradford player in support. Mcguire caused problems all game backing up, usually Webb and Burrow are there too. Sykes had time and space but no support. They made it easy for Leeds to defend.

Id worry how this big name pack is actually fronting up. Leeds had one forward interchange (who had been knocked out) for the 2nd half and at times lined up with only Bailey as a fully fledged prop but dominated. A pack like that shouldnt have been dominated as it was

Awful coaching from Macnamara to switch Sheriffe, massive vote of no confidence for a player who only dropped one bomb having been peppered for 25 minutes in the sun. Saying that, i wouldnt take any of the bradford back line. and im not sure any of the other big sides would either.

I think the point some Leeds fans are making is that if we take into account Bradfords injuries then we must also take into account Leeds injuries. Leeds had more players of a similar quality out than Bradford. Therefore Bradfords injuries cannot be used as an excuse for Bradford loss. The fact Leeds coped better with more players out shows Leeds have a better squad than Bradford and thats the reason they won. Knowing that any excuse regarding injuries is simply nonsense

Yes bloody really. Adults discussing a game, not kids making excuses.


Fook me. Who do you reckon you are impressing with your "Mr. Masterful" impersonation?


Have you got the painters in or something? If i say we have enough to beat Team X - why, as an adult with functioning brain, could you possibly read that as meaning "we WILL beat Team X EVERY time if only x,y,z players play"?


Of course they can! It is weird to suggest otherwise. I can, plainly, discuss how the team is weakened by the absence of x, y and z. I don't even have to mention any particular opponent at all. What an odd remark!

. . and now you're just being really silly. Who on earth made any such preposterous claim?


Well, at least that much is true.

Nobody is denying this part - Leeds have a bigger squad with more money being spent on it- obviously they will be better covering for injuries.

Typical form by plenty on here I am afraid. After all I was ridiculed for making the self same point. Just a shame for some of the experts on RAB that other share my opinion.

No wonder we get known as "bitter Bulls".

(incidentally, FAO Adey and FA, the other day I was told that there were people on here who have more integrity than others and therefore their opinions should be more respected than others. Apparently there is a difference between reasoned knowledge and "trolling tery". Now I am sure that neither of you will dismiss G1 as a trolling t so it is a shame that you both seem to contradict yourself once again. Fell at the first again!

)