that is a far better offering and a lot more sensible than what was first offered up.

Any more than if you, or any other Leeds fan, says it that does not make it so either.

Sadler at least could claim to be a neutral observer, which is more than you can. And therefore why most other observers would give his opinion greater weight.

No doubt you will take that up with Sadler then, since it was him and his reporter whose words I was quoting? I look forward to reading your letter next week telling him how not-sensible his observations were.

steve saint ganson can claim to be a neutral and he has the frickin whistle!

Sadler is notorious for baggin Leeds.

Funnily enough, most old hands on here will almost certainly tell you he has been notorious for putting the boot into Bradford. Indeed, I still have a file of clippings somewhere from the old BISA days of a few years ago when he could be seen to be doing that. And indeed, my first real contact with any of the Bulls hierarchy was on 2/1/01, after I posted an admonishing piece called "a new year's plea" - aimed at several folk, including Caisley and yes, Sadler after he had had a real go at us.

So that means he probably IS impartial...

the Sinfield to Donald pass may have been forward, i dont think it was as obvious as people think but im prepared to accept it may have been. However Eastwoods to Mcguire wasnt, and the Hall try there wasnt one even close to being forward. Mcguires touchdown was a down.

as for the comparison between nero and hall, that is nonsense Hall and Sheriffe were competing for the ball, Nero and Donald werent. I would agree with, and be in favour of a re-writing of the rules which would have allowed Nero to compete for the ball in that position and that his effect on Donald would have to have been the cause of him missing the ball (which it wasnt). It was harsh and morally it was probably unfair. However the issue there is with the rules and not with the ruling.

so that is three tries for leeds that wouldnt really be argued over, compared to one that shouldnt have been. Its misleading to say that Bradford were hard done to by the Ref

i would definately.
Mcguire had easily as much control over the ball. If not more than Whitehead did for the first try. It was a great play, we should be celebrating it because its whats special about our game. You would never see a play like that in any other game. The speed of thought and action was outstanding.Why the Game needs to find fault with that I dont know.

Thats fine.

You know, I wouldnt have any issue with a reasoned argument like that. I dont agree. I think you add those four players the Leeds squad is also a lot better, i cant agree that Bradfords injured players would have added what they needed. I think it does a disservice to the Leeds team.

Peacock would have meant no Burgess who was poor in a very short stint. It means no Donald to make those errors with a better fullback in Webb who adds more in attack and defence than Smith at fullback.

It means Lauitiiti instead of Pitts, now i dont believe, considering how much the conditions favoured a player like Eastwood, anyone would seriously think Ali wouldnt have made more of an impact than Pitts.

And a energy sapping, bone dry pitch. The exact conditions id want Burrow in.

I think looking at Bradfords team will show what the problem is. The back five offered next to nothing. There was no support play at all, very little second phase and a pack only missing Langley not getting on top of a pack without Lauitiiti and Peacock

Was there at least a little bit of downward pressure for Whitehead's try? Definitely.

Was there for McGuire's? It was extremely hard to tell, but Alibert could be forgiven for thinking not.

I comment now on the games that I can see, something that yet again people have criticised me about. Again I am damned if I do and damned if I don't on this one. TBF, I also had plenty of reason to come on here after MM but I chose not to do so on thiat occasion. If I really just wanted to rub it in I certainly could have done so that weekend.

The problem on this thread is that there are FAR TOO many Bradford fans making themselves look really really silly on this thread with their tame excuses.

"The ref didn't like us"
"Sadler doesn't like us"
"Sadler actually does not like us more than he does not like you so ner"

I see we now hit page 13 and we were now FOUR players out (FFS, you are not now including Sculthorpe in this one are you because, if so, that is the worst example of straw clutching I have ever known!) so maybe if we get to page 20 we will have had five out (Tupou?)

Once some people actually realise that we were easily beaten by the better side the better. No wonder the Leeds fans mock us as much as they do, as they certainly get plenty of ammo from the bad losers on here.

You seem to have a bit of a problem in facing facts these days. In fact, you posted just the other day that you regarded G1 as sensible. Clearly he must have said something that you agreed with at the time because as soon as there is a difference of view then his views are seen as "disappointing" or something similar.

That is the view from Planet Eddie certainly and I seem to be able to see a lot more from up here. If "walking the road to Damascus" means becoming a paranoid bitter Bull then I will bid you farewell at the crossroads because if that is your idea of being a fan then you are right, that is exactly what I am not.

Sad but true but the majority of the sensible posts on here have come from our neighbours. Perhaps we are spending the fourth least amount of Salary Cap on RL Fans members now too.......

Don't think anyone is classing sculthorpe as an injured player until he actually plays a game for us tbf. If we did we would have had five out. The four out were orford,kearney,langley and crookes. Whilst crookes certainly isnt a guaranteed starting player, he is our only real option outside the first choice 17 if want to shake things up in the backline so could conceivably have been used if fit.

In that case Leeds had 6 out.

You don't need any control, you just need downward pressure. Even if he didn't touch it down it went backwards & JJB did. As has been suggested, maybe Halibut was evening things out.

There is only one person making himself look silly on this thread, and that's you. And once again you see fit to lecture that everyone else is wrong (including external commentators) and you are right. There are words for that. It says something that the only people you can claim to call upon to support your obsession are (inevitably partisan) Leeds posters.

And you continue to be totally dishonest. I see few people making "excuses", let alone "tame excuses". What I see are a lot of people applauding the effort, rueing the missed opportunities, cringing at the (few, but fatal) mistakes and expressing their views on the decisions. I, along with numerous others, have acknowledged Leeds were the better team and deserved the win. The "who has more players out" argument has got out of hand, mainly due to the Leeds trolling, but again people have expressed their views.

You come across as a bitter obsessive taking delight in any misfortunes that befall the club, and rarely if ever bestowing any praise for things that go right or for good performance.

I say again. You are no supporter. Supporters SUPPORT. You just forever criticise and belittle.

And the award for the most ironic post of the year goes to.......

(incidentally the most likely reason that more support for me comes from the Leeds fans in this instance is because they seem to actually have watched the game and have formed a fair opinion. Interesting to note, one of the most impartial on here, Cas loving tigertot seems to share more of my views than that of most other Bulls fans. I will take his opinion over that TBH.)

That's because I fancy you.

Yes, there was, one hundred percent definately. You can see it. You can see it by the fact Mcguire moved the ball downwards

Tut tut, shame on you. It's come to a pretty pass when [iyou[/i don't know the rule. "Downward pressure" does not apply to the ball carrier!! He has to PLACE THE BALL ON THE GROUND, no ifs, no buts, "place".

The Rule states:


The "downward pressure" bit only comes into play if a ball which is still in play (i.e. has not gone dead or been knocked on) IS ALREADY on the ground. Then, and only then, a player can score a try just by exerting downward pressure on the (already grounded) ball. (or (c))

Someone actually carrying the ball needs to ground it as in (a) - they have no other way of scoring.

I would agree that if a player drops the ball and it goes backwards, it remains in play, and after that either he, or another player, can do a (b) or a (c); however it is almost impossible to drop a ball and for it not to be a knock on, and the sort of situation where that might happen (e.g. a fullback dropping a big kick, but spilling the ball behind him) certainly didn't exist here.

If you're carrying and drop it, then you can't do (a). You can do (b), or (c) but having dropped it, it doesn't count if you've knocked on.

I'm moving on from this now. The ref cheated us end of we have other games to play with other refs to officiate.

Really? Let's read your next sentence and see how adult you're being.

Very grown up of you. The point was you were, as usual, being esoteric. You don't just discuss the Bulls on here in isolation do you? It's an easy and obvious point.

very grown up, again. Nice adult discussion. Why get so worked up when i express a different opinion?

because, rather than simply accept "your say" I'd like to look at some factual evidence. Now, of course, one can never say with any certainty that if players X had played we would certainly have won/lost (which makes the point Adey and Sadler were making about your absentees fairly redundant in itself) but what one can do is look at the last time you faced with your three missing players as a fairly decent indication that your statement that, in probability, you do not have enough to beat us with those three players because, just a month ago, you didn't. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

Of course you can but it's fairly valueless in the context of a game discussion without makiing the same considerations of your opponents.

balance?

The match reporter (usually a willing supporter who usually volunteers) has opined that the decisions were marginal. Marginal. Isn't that what I've been saying above? He goes on to say the home crowd didn't like the outcome of those marginal decisions. No s[ihi[/it.

What balance and objectivety does the post bring?

That's something I have picked up on. I like Adey as a poster and his views are always expressed articulately and well constructed. He is one of RL fans better posters.

But it does irk slightly that whenever I have a different viewpoint he does play that card.

I am not going to dignify that arrogant, conceited and insulting - as well as incredibly naïve - attack on the opinions of most Bradford posters' with any detailed reply. If you cannot see what a jerk statements like that make you look, then you really are a lost cause. With "supporters" like you, what club needs enemies?

Sadler is wrong. You were missing your scrum half, so were we.

You were missing your full back who plays the role of stand off from the back. So were we. Webb plays the same role. In fact, only a couple of weeks ago, he played scrum half in place of our injured scrum half.

You were missing a back rower. So were we.

However many times you repeat Sadler's view it still doesn't bear scrutiny

hard to argue otherwise.

Do we? Don't we obey the same salary cap regulations?

yes we were. As well as missing our best prop forward. That is without mentioning the in game disruptions we suffered.

Then Sadler is wrong, again. Your comments imply you don't usually like Sadlers views. Interesting you do on this occassion. Why might that be? The "package of reasons" we won were your failure to convert your chances, your failure to employ a better kicking game in the first half, us taking advantage of the elements in the second half and employing a good kicking game and our tenacious defence.

They can, but if they choose to ignore our absentees or your failure to take chances or your failure to take advantage of the elements in the first half or our ability to take advantage of those elements then they are, as I said earlier, simply looking for excuses.