With the way Rovers get up for derby games I must admit I am glad we don't have to play you for a while !

Just a shame the North Stand won't be ready in time As this game would probably make the next a full house.

I have just removed libelous comments from this thread.
The next thing to be removed will be the posters making them.

No second chances.

I would not be surprised if Hudgell is invited to explain this comment: "For all of them I need more than 'sorry' from an ex-Hull FC player, coach and vocal advocate down the years."

He appears to be questioning Jon Sharp's integrity and I reckon has done Hudgell no favours in his quest for "justice"

No, just stating his credentials for those who dont know him.

Moot point as Sandercock had already ordered a shot at goal (from 80 odd meters out).

Who's "Griffiths"? Why was he not playing?

I was.
I'll say it again there is no way that 'tracking the wrong player' stands up to any scrutiny when you give it 2 seconds thought.

You start to track a player and realise he isn't within meters of the guy touching the ball so you go and track another one until you find the one that is.

There are more questions now then before they released their statement. In fact I would say Ganson's position is more in doubt than before it as well.

Thats 80 metres minus the distance Craig Hall gets on his kick minus the distance Hull KR can drive in 5 tackles. DOH!!

You may wish that but if you think his position is untenable then you're equally away with the fairies as your chairman

All the it's your cup final rubbish is exactly that.
Ben Galea in the programme got it right with the following:

I would say without a doubt the intensity in the derbies is the highest you will play in all year.
The fans play a huge part in that because they are so passionate on both sides of the city
The players really feed off the atmosphere the fans generate and I think this is why these games are played at such high intensity for the full 80 minutes.
It really does make a difference when the crowd are singing and going nuts at each other

So no chance of a knock on then like you did in the last minute?

What an unbelievably petty small minded person you are.

So because he voiced an opinion on an incident that happened 6 years ago (an incident where a player was illegally tapped up, so a sympathetic opinion to the team hard done to), you have this grudge against him that clouds your judgement so much that you think he personally deserves criticism for a mistake that he didn't make and has done everything possible so far to highlight his deepest sympathies to those affected?

No RFL charges were issued to Rovers when Cooke joined so how can you say he was illegally tapped up.

Cookegate - that can only pour oil on troubled fires!



Sharp picked sides over that, so can't expect to be Mr popular among Rovers fans. But it has nothing to do with this, and I think he did as well as he could under the circumstances.

Cooke's joining Rovers was deemed illegal to the laws. You know precisely what happened and you know who to blame.

Oh, it's been a while hasn't it? the initial approach must have come from Cooke to Rovers - how else would the club have known about the issues around his contract?

I believe congratulations are in order, btw! CONGRATULATIONS

Just what I was thinking. A crucial and shocking decision against Rovers in a derby costing them the match, Hulls forward pass (lack of) decision last year and Cooke-gate.

.... KABOOM!

D'oh to you pal.

Sandercock said in his hysterics after the game he was already ordering the field goal. Another one like Ganson who doesn't know the rules by the sounds of it.

Don't act stupid. You know what Sandercock meant!

Stupid would be the assumption that you were likely to go 80m (with kick) and score a guaranteed drop goal when you were clearly out on your feet.

To be fair I don't think it's an act it comes across as genuine to me.

Anyway - back to the statement...

A bit puzzling that NH should choose to highlight the potential affect on Sanderock's career when he must have already known that a new deal was on offer. A tad unprofessional?

Wow, so lets get this right, you are suggesting that then Paul Cooke saga had some bearing on a video refereeing decision?

Because that would be saying its no longer just a
stupendous brain fart by someone with a history of making controversial calls to a high level vendetta going back more than 6 years by the games governing body.

Or, for the record, rovers had lost the lead by that point, so it didn't cost you the game, it cost you a point IF there had been no further score I the remaining 3 minutes should the penalty have been given on the rovers 10.

Twisting his argument for a desired effect. Doesn't sound like him.