Froth again?

An incorrect PTB that gave a clear advantage to break the unset defensive line and gain about 30 undeserved metres, as opposed to an alleged marginally forward pass to Lima who physically destroyed your "defensive" (and I use the term loosely) line.


He got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards. Clear incorrect PTB, or do you have some evidence to show him on 2 feet? Answer: no you don't. By claiming that was a correct PTB you are demonstrating even more clearly your lack of knowledge about the game.


Everyone except, well, anyone who disagrees with you, including, most importantly, the officials. I'm not even convinced you knew that particular part of the laws since you kept referring to the ball having hit Charnley last.


So just to clarify, our hooker wore 7, our scrum half wore 17, a winger wore 25 and a centre wore 12, a second-rower wore 16 and a prop wore 15, just like they always do. On your team you had a winger wearing 23, and centres wearing 19 and 12, whilst your loose forward wore 20 and your second-rowers wore 11 and 3. Getting the picture now. Your little outburst and your belief that shirt numbers and positions match like they did 25 years ago seems all the more silly now. Not only don't you realise players wear their squad number, you don't even realise your own team do it. Do you actually watch any rugby, let alone Leeds?

Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"Froth again? An incorrect PTB that gave a clear advantage to break the unset defensive line and gain about 30 undeserved metres, as opposed to an alleged marginally forward pass to Lima who physically destroyed your "defensive" (and I use the term loosely) line.'" Yes, it seems a fairly simple concept. God Knows why you are struggling so much with it. A (possible) incorrect play the ball ended with Leeds 30Metres down field, a clearly forward pass resulted in a Wigan try. One clearly had more of an effect, ill give you a clue which one. Would you rather have a try or 30metres? Quote He got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards. Clear incorrect PTB, or do you have some evidence to show him on 2 feet? Answer: no you don't. By claiming that was a correct PTB you are demonstrating even more clearly your lack of knowledge about the game.'" No he didnt. Stop being silly. I do have some evidence that shows him on two feet. Here you go...... www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... ds_Rhinos/ try about 59:30. You will see. Its not tidy but certainly, clearly regains his feet and propels the ball backwards under his foot. He then falls over but im not sure where the not falling over after playing the ball rule has come from? Can i ask why your idea of what he does has changed from [iHe was horizontal, placed the ball on the ground and leap-frogged it[/i to [iHe got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards[/i? Quote Everyone except, well, anyone who disagrees with you, including, most importantly, the officials. I'm not even convinced you knew that particular part of the laws since you kept referring to the ball having hit Charnley last. '" Well yes, everyone except you and a few other deluded Wigan fans. I referred to Charnley hitting the ball last as a he clearly played at it. As did Burrow. Quote So just to clarify, our hooker wore 7, our scrum half wore 17, a winger wore 25 and a centre wore 12, a second-rower wore 16 and a prop wore 15, just like they always do. On your team you had a winger wearing 23, and centres wearing 19 and 12, whilst your loose forward wore 20 and your second-rowers wore 11 and 3. Getting the picture now. Your little outburst and your belief that shirt numbers and positions match like they did 25 years ago seems all the more silly now. Not only don't you realise players wear their squad number, you don't even realise your own team do it. Do you actually watch any rugby, let alone Leeds? '" This . This is your argument as to why you couldnt tell the difference between one of the greatest hookers the game has ever seen and an international stand off, despite seeing their numbers.

Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"Froth again? An incorrect PTB that gave a clear advantage to break the unset defensive line and gain about 30 undeserved metres, as opposed to an alleged marginally forward pass to Lima who physically destroyed your "defensive" (and I use the term loosely) line.'" Yes, it seems a fairly simple concept. God Knows why you are struggling so much with it. A (possible) incorrect play the ball ended with Leeds 30Metres down field, a clearly forward pass resulted in a Wigan try. One clearly had more of an effect, ill give you a clue which one. Would you rather have a try or 30metres? Quote He got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards. Clear incorrect PTB, or do you have some evidence to show him on 2 feet? Answer: no you don't. By claiming that was a correct PTB you are demonstrating even more clearly your lack of knowledge about the game.'" No he didnt. Stop being silly. I do have some evidence that shows him on two feet. Here you go...... www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... ds_Rhinos/ try about 59:30. You will see. Its not tidy but certainly, clearly regains his feet and propels the ball backwards under his foot. He then falls over but im not sure where the not falling over after playing the ball rule has come from? Can i ask why your idea of what he does has changed from [iHe was horizontal, placed the ball on the ground and leap-frogged it[/i to [iHe got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards[/i? Quote Everyone except, well, anyone who disagrees with you, including, most importantly, the officials. I'm not even convinced you knew that particular part of the laws since you kept referring to the ball having hit Charnley last. '" Well yes, everyone except you and a few other deluded Wigan fans. I referred to Charnley hitting the ball last as a he clearly played at it. As did Burrow. Quote So just to clarify, our hooker wore 7, our scrum half wore 17, a winger wore 25 and a centre wore 12, a second-rower wore 16 and a prop wore 15, just like they always do. On your team you had a winger wearing 23, and centres wearing 19 and 12, whilst your loose forward wore 20 and your second-rowers wore 11 and 3. Getting the picture now. Your little outburst and your belief that shirt numbers and positions match like they did 25 years ago seems all the more silly now. Not only don't you realise players wear their squad number, you don't even realise your own team do it. Do you actually watch any rugby, let alone Leeds? '" This . This is your argument as to why you couldnt tell the difference between one of the greatest hookers the game has ever seen and an international stand off, despite seeing their numbers.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"Yes, it seems a fairly simple concept. God Knows why you are struggling so much with it. A (possible) incorrect play the ball ended with Leeds 30Metres down field, a clearly forward pass resulted in a Wigan try. One clearly had more of an effect, ill give you a clue which one. Would you rather have a try or 30metres? '" You got both. Quote No he didnt. Stop being silly. I do have some evidence that shows him on two feet. Here you go...... www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... ds_Rhinos/ try about 59:30. You will see. Its not tidy but certainly, clearly regains his feet and propels the ball backwards under his foot. He then falls over but im not sure where the not falling over after playing the ball rule has come from?'" You know, I honestly didn't think you were stupid enough to maintain this silly claim. You're making it way to easy mate. Quote Well yes, everyone except you and a few other deluded Wigan fans. '" Don't forget the officials. Quote I referred to Charnley hitting the ball last as a he clearly played at it. As did Burrow. '" Only Burrow played at it, hence the Wigan scrum. That's how these things work. Quote This . This is your argument as to why you couldnt tell the difference between one of the greatest hookers the game has ever seen and an international stand off, despite seeing their numbers.'" We seem to be going full circle - I'm not familiar with the Leeds squad numbers. You responded by saying it was obviously Buderus as he was the hooker and had 9 on. I pointed out that players wear squad numbers these days. Simple. The fact that you didn't know this--even about your own team--is hugely embarrassing for you.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"Yes, it seems a fairly simple concept. God Knows why you are struggling so much with it. A (possible) incorrect play the ball ended with Leeds 30Metres down field, a clearly forward pass resulted in a Wigan try. One clearly had more of an effect, ill give you a clue which one. Would you rather have a try or 30metres? '" You got both. Quote No he didnt. Stop being silly. I do have some evidence that shows him on two feet. Here you go...... www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... ds_Rhinos/ try about 59:30. You will see. Its not tidy but certainly, clearly regains his feet and propels the ball backwards under his foot. He then falls over but im not sure where the not falling over after playing the ball rule has come from?'" You know, I honestly didn't think you were stupid enough to maintain this silly claim. You're making it way to easy mate. Quote Well yes, everyone except you and a few other deluded Wigan fans. '" Don't forget the officials. Quote I referred to Charnley hitting the ball last as a he clearly played at it. As did Burrow. '" Only Burrow played at it, hence the Wigan scrum. That's how these things work. Quote This . This is your argument as to why you couldnt tell the difference between one of the greatest hookers the game has ever seen and an international stand off, despite seeing their numbers.'" We seem to be going full circle - I'm not familiar with the Leeds squad numbers. You responded by saying it was obviously Buderus as he was the hooker and had 9 on. I pointed out that players wear squad numbers these days. Simple. The fact that you didn't know this--even about your own team--is hugely embarrassing for you.

Fair enough.

Yes, it does carry on you know. I put the video on there to show that. Nice bit of interference there aswell. Something you said didnt happen, then you have posted a picture of it happening. That must be hugely embarrassing for you.

You have also failed to answer why your idea of what he does has changed from [iHe was horizontal, placed the ball on the ground and leap-frogged it[/i to [iHe got to one knee, propelled the ball backwards with his hand and dove forwards?[/i

Ah so up until i pointed it out to you, you were under the strange misaprehension that Danny Mcguire wore the number 9 and one of the most famous hookers in the world wore number 6. This must be hugely embarrassing for you.

Could i ask why you thought Danny Mcguire wore the number 9?

You're reaching new levels of childishness now.


Are you claiming that Ablett goes on to regain both feet, then places the ball on the ground in order to make it a correct PTB? Beware that if you do make this claim I'll be forced to embarrass you again by showing clearly that this does not happen. He places the ball on the ground whilst he is on one knee, as can be seen.


He didn't interfere. There was nothing preventing Ablett from regaining his feet other than his own desire to cheat.


When a player dives forward onto the floor over the ball they tend to be horizontal, but that's largely irrelevant, since both are incorrect PTBs. Take your pick.




Why would I be embarrassed that I mistook 2 opposition players from the same team. You appear to want to make a big deal of such a non issue. Distraction is such a tell-tale sign that you have lost the argument you know.


I simply wasn't paying attention. Now could I ask why you thought the Leeds first team wore 1-17?

For me the game was spoiled by 4 decisions by Bentham and the other officials:-

1. The tackle on Delaney in the first half which was not deemed dangerous, his feet were clearly lifted above his head.
2. The tackle which took Jones-Bishop into touch, he clearly had both feet lifted off the floor.
3. The forward pass for Lima's 2nd try though difficult to pick up when at speed and both players stood close together, plus Bentham was stood 10m in front so difficult for him to see from that angle and Hicks looked unsighted on the far side, don't know about Childs. Maybe we need to go to the video ref on these and if inconclusive, benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.
4. The decision on who knocked the ball out at such a crucial time late in the 2nd half should have gone to the video ref for clarification even if Hicks thought he was sure, for me Charnley was looking to get hold of the ball and deemed to play it.

All these went against Leeds and watching it as a neutral I thought it spoiled the game as a whole, I wasn't bothered who won as long as it was a good game to watch and it could have been a great game if those poor decisions weren't made, Wigan probably would still have shaded it.

As whenever Rovers are playing I don't mind losing as long it's not to controversial and incorrect decisions, but that's life.

You took your time. Usually I only manage a few posts before you start trying to discourage me from responding.

The trouble with this is you're clearly only bothered by supposedly poor decisions that went against Leeds and not those that went against Wigan. As such it just comes across as "I wanted Leeds to win and they didn't so I'm bitter."

I thought this was by far the worst and has nothing to do with who was playing who.

If Mcguire and Bailey had done this to Tompkins, Wigan fans (and quite a few others) would be calling for a public hanging. A very poor decision, and a failure to protect a players safety.

Or maybe as a nuetral he called what he saw, and simply not agreeing with you simply means he believes you to be wrong.

Your 'anyone who disagrees with me is bitter and hates wigan' arrgument is as self-fulfilling as it is pathetic. Especially as he states he wasnt bothered who won.

I wasn't bothered who won , it was a forward pass , tough W1g4n won

Noticably, you've only selected decisions in Wigan's favour.
- 2 of Leeds' tries were arguably forward passes.
- Doubt about the grounding of Hall's try.
- The very questionable play-the-ball by Ablett in the lead-up to BJB's try.
And what about incidents such as Bailey's late challenge on Tomkins, McGuire giving Charnley a facial after Hall's try, JJB's grapple, Leuluai's brain fart against Lima, etc.

It's swings and roundabouts. We'd all love it if every decision was 100% correct, but it's never going to happen. Even if every incorrect decision was reversed you'd have had a different game but Wigan still might have won - and based on their fantastic defensive performance and ability to score tries, probably would have.

It's the first time I've heard of most of these things to be honest. Leuluai's brainfart against Lima was penalised, what is your problem?

For balance, I do remember thinking at the time that Ablett hadn't played the ball correctly, and there was a knock-on by Leeds that was waved play-on by the ref at some point in the second half IIRC.

That said it wasn't just a case of 'swings and roundabouts', and Wigan had more than their fair share of luck on the day. Sometimes these things just go against you. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that Leeds were in any way robbed. However, given that Leeds were so well and truly written off prior to the game it is pleasing that most will remember it as being a close final with several controversial incidents being seen to decide the outcome rather than it being a complete whitewash by the all-conquering Wigan side we keep hearing about.

Leuluai was indeed penalised, fair enough - that was another turning point - in a superb attacking position in the CC Final when your team is trailing, one of your own players does something so stupid. Anyway the point stands. There were controversial decisions for both teams. Decisions that could have turned the game both ways and tries for both sides that could have been chalked off.

As for Leeds being written off - not by me they weren't. Anyone with half a brain cell knew that We were lucky to get a draw at your place and only just pipped it at the DW, and that Leeds come out hard and aggressive against us and stifle our game for long periods - and they always do a good job closing down Sam Tomkins. I posted on c&w last week this would be a very close, very tough game. Overall it did seem the momentum was with Wigan but you should know better than to listen to the media.

Ha ha, if sidetracking a thread is one of the most clear indications that you've lost an argument, then fabricating quotes has got to be [uthe[/u clearest. It's a shame that you're either too lacking in comprehension skills to know what I said or too lacking in debating skills to respond to the actual position I hold, but I'll spell it out just for you:

[iMy conclusion that he is bitter about a Leeds loss isn't based on the fact that he disgarees with me, it's based on the fact that he is only bothered by decisions that went against Leeds.[/i

You'll be surprised to know I agree.

As I have said numerous times Wigan were worthy winners, it is simply a disappointment the officials had such an affect on the game.

I like this, it shows the start point of your circular nonsense.

They have a huge affect on every game , if they refereed games properly Leeds would finish bottom of the league , between forward passes , budderus interfering at the PTB and Bailey and Webbs outright thuggery , they'd lose every game

Unfortunatley the refs are either blind or scared when it comes to Leeds

Who's going to get the last word in?

Smokey 4/7
The other clown 2/1

Don't put your money on me , I've said piece on the subject

Don't be fooled by this - he promised me last week he'd given his last word on a subject after I'd corrected his factually inaccurate ramblings; it lasted less than 40 minutes before he was back, spewing more drivel.

HTH.

I disagree.

Nice to see a sensible post on here in the midst of the absolute dross that has been posted. One of the best finals in recent years yet there are cretins on here arguing the toss like 4 year olds.