Who Hetherington? McClennan an Aussie, call the cops.

OK. Muppet award accepted

It is exactly the same allegation as made against Huddersfield this season. What is interesting is that leeds are the masters of it and also wrestling.

i was really impressed with the fact that it is quite hard to get a Leeds player on his back. I saw Peacock and another of their other props practicing this before KO.

the complaint is about the fact that other teams have caught up with Leeds and Saints in this respect.

the problem is that certain teams get labelled and then the refs pick up on it and they get penalised. When you look at the comments it is all about trying to get you targetted so as to avoid the refs watching them as they are the little innocent victims.

I just don't see how defence can be said to be on top. This season there have in SL, yet again, been the same number of points conceded by defences as have been scored by attacks.

Hetherington's lost it. Again.

Hetherinton said in the Yorks evening post.
"I think it is a bit of a concern for the game that coaches are coaching to stop the opposition and they are getting really good at it.

His concern for the game is admirable, but is it rather his concern over the Rhino coach's inability to match the legal tactics employed by other teams?

Hetherington just likes to see Leeds in the press nothing else and during the last few weeks that hasn't happened as much.

Don't agree with what he's saying and must confess I'm struggling to understand why he said it!

I think, like Hetherington points out in the article, the skill level of SL to defeat such defensive tactics is poor and his (and mine) own club is a glaring example of this at present.

Hopefully this isn't just an attempt to influence the refs to speed up the PTBs again.

Pretty well every time something does not go his way, or some other club steals the march on him, he throws the teddy out in public saying its not good for the game.

I did hear it said, a while back and by someone with very considerable knowledge in the game, that he was just firing the bullets that someone else puts into his head. That may or may not be so, but its every time its something that's not to Leeds' benefit, isn't it?

Or, if he gets his way over something, its "good for the game".

I suspect that with the welcome (yes, welcome) rise to prominence again of clubs like Hull KR and Wakey and Cas, and more clubs anyway able to compete at the top level now - and the memories of Chairman Chris fading round the board table at Rot Hall - he's not getting things anything like as much his own way nowdays?

When CC was here and the dodgy bookie was at the Piedome, they were easy targets and lightening rods for a salesman like GH to exploit. Now they have long gone, he's may increasingly attract the lightening back on himself?

You can HOPE, but....

And anyway, its only for when Leeds are attacking. He's clearly no problem when they are defending, as we continually see.

I agree with that and I hope it isn't either. I see nothing wrong with holding a player up, then putting him to ground before releasing him in the time honoured fashion. Just as there is nothing wrong with an attacker going to ground on his front and getting a quick play the ball.

I'd prefer to see the attacking side of the game improve to counter the tactic rather than rely on the refs to do the job.

I have to grudgingly admit, Leeds seemed to do this very effectively. I said at the time, we should learn from that - excellent discipline and tactics, even though it pains me to say so!

As the report is in the Leeds evening paper I'd say it's intended to quell the disquiet among his own team's supporters, wondering where the recent tradition of free flowing attacking rugby has gone this season.

His use of the term 'cops and robbers' indicates he has a target audience in mind.



Hanley made a career out of it but it's clearly now being employed on a squad wide basis rather than by a select few individuals.

How could you suggest such a thing. Surely he would not have the arrogance to think that simply going public would have the gravitas to influence our experienced referees.
Surely he would have first voiced his concerns for the game to Redhall, and then after due consideration they would have conveyed their deliberations in an edict to refereees.

That's how it USED to work, before his influence at Rot Hall waned a bit...do keep up!



More seriously, I suspect TVOC is closest to the mark.

[size=59Sorry for "improving" your post...[/size

Sorry Adey, had meant to have sarcasm mode employed

You did and I read it exactly that way!




Just wanted to make sure it didn't go past our most recent supporters a bit fast!

Correct me if im wrong but didn't we beat both Leeds and St Helens by 4 points each?

Does this technically mean that his earlier comments about Bradford slowing the play down are nul and void or is it still not right because Leeds didn't win?

What a pillock.

After 2 pages of reasoned discussion I think your 3 word summation says it all.

Outrageous thing to say.

I could give you a clue.

It starts with T ends with r, and he is one.

He's a Trafficker?!!

Thank you

I've always had a way with words

That's surely no way to think about that fine, upstanding, honourable and selfless honest man? He who only ever puts the game, and helping out fellow clubs in need out of the pure goodness of his heart, well ahead of his own club's interests? Even if you "cohersed" him I'm sure he'd never do anything to give his club any kind of unfair advantage, so how can you think such of him? I'm sure that if Rugby League was empowered to canonize anyone it would be this perfect man?

I for one would most definitely canonize him. Oh yes. Absolutely.

I think a 155mm howitzer would do the trick...