 |
|
 |
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1625 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jul 2011 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| ArthurClues:
10 games in we are 4th. I would suggest the next month, with games against Hull at home, Cas away, and Wakey at home will be pivotal in terms of our season. Win those three and suddenly we look like contenders. If we can manage to bring Hastings into replace Frawley I think our squad (without the sparkle of Wigan and KR) bats deeper than any other in the league. Interesting times.
I think you would have to put Warrington in there as well. To push Wigan so close yesterday with their side decimated with injuries to key players and all their main playmakers missing takes some doing. They also beat us with their entire first choice three quarter line out injured. They’re doing it tough but not being blitzed that often. They’re will be thereabouts when they get everyone back fit again.
| | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1625 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jul 2011 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Emagdnim13:
It should have been a red card. I wanted Wilkin to cry
Wilkin is a nasty greaseball. He should be pulled from punditry when Saints are involved. He loses any sense of impartiality and starts getting vindictive. It seems Jack Sinfield is going to be his point of reference for any high shots for the rest of the season, as was Richie Myler for months on end when simulation was questioned. Barrie McDermott also needs to be stood down when Leeds are involved. He becomes an absolute buffoon by saying Leeds have got lucky whenever there’s a questionable decision in their favour. He comes out with some child like comments to try and prove his impartiality and sounds like the idiot down the pub that everyone avoids when they see. I didn’t think he could get any dafter when he said it was Lachie Miller’s fault for nearly getting decapitated at Salford last year because he bent down when catching a high bomb, but he was up there on the daftometer again at the weekend.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 441 | St. Helens |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2014 | 11 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| I'm surprised by everybody on here saying they think the Murphy yellow was correct. I have a sneaking suspicion that had it been the other way around, you'd be furious. For a start, Murphy isn't "the tackler" so rules about tackling don't apply. Saints were in possession, so he's the attacker. We see attackers go in with their knees out etc pretty much every charge. That said, the rules for tackling or carrying the ball aren't relevant anyway, as it was a contest in the air for the ball. It was a completely fair contest, both had eyes on the ball, nothing wrong with it whatsoever. When you jump, you stick your knee out for leverage. Watch literally any game of rugby back and see it happen multiple times a game, pretty much every single time anybody jumps for the ball... That's how you jump! Murphy has been penalised for A) Being able to jump high and B) for Edgell not bothering to jump at all, which is patently ridiculous. Particularly it's obviously not Murphy's fault that Edgell didn't even bother to attempt to contest the ball, nor is that something he can predict when he jumps. If Edgell leaves the ground at all, then the head contact can't possibly happen. What's even more ridiculous is that had he caught the ball, he'd probably have been AWARDED the penalty for being tackled in the air. Think the ruling was positively stupid. A contest in the air will always have elements of risk, and if these things are going to be called then you may as well just ban jumping for the ball. To me, this is in line with the Nu Brown red card incident last year. Yes, there is contact with the head but it's pretty clear it's nobody's fault and doesn't need punishment as it's a "rugby league incident" ie something that can just happen by playing the sport.
That said, don't wanna harp on it too much as I don't think it effected the result of the game. I originally came here to congratulate you on your win which was very much deserved as I thought you were by far the better team for the majority of the game and should have been way more than 10-0 up at HT. As much fun as it is to enjoy the misfortune of rival clubs, I'm actually happy to see you guys moving in the right direction. I'd prefer all of our big clubs to be firing on all cylinders as that's whats going to lead to a better comp and more exciting seasons. Not looking likely now, but would be great if you could keep hold of Arthur for a few more years.
| | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Board Member | 13728 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2002 | 22 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| The Reaper:
I'm surprised by everybody on here saying they think the Murphy yellow was correct. I have a sneaking suspicion that had it been the other way around, you'd be furious. For a start, Murphy isn't "the tackler" so rules about tackling don't apply. Saints were in possession, so he's the attacker. We see attackers go in with their knees out etc pretty much every charge. That said, the rules for tackling or carrying the ball aren't relevant anyway, as it was a contest in the air for the ball. It was a completely fair contest, both had eyes on the ball, nothing wrong with it whatsoever. When you jump, you stick your knee out for leverage. Watch literally any game of rugby back and see it happen multiple times a game, pretty much every single time anybody jumps for the ball... That's how you jump! Murphy has been penalised for A) Being able to jump high and B) for Edgell not bothering to jump at all, which is patently ridiculous. Particularly it's obviously not Murphy's fault that Edgell didn't even bother to attempt to contest the ball, nor is that something he can predict when he jumps. If Edgell leaves the ground at all, then the head contact can't possibly happen. What's even more ridiculous is that had he caught the ball, he'd probably have been AWARDED the penalty for being tackled in the air. Think the ruling was positively stupid. A contest in the air will always have elements of risk, and if these things are going to be called then you may as well just ban jumping for the ball. To me, this is in line with the Nu Brown red card incident last year. Yes, there is contact with the head but it's pretty clear it's nobody's fault and doesn't need punishment as it's a "rugby league incident" ie something that can just happen by playing the sport.
That said, don't wanna harp on it too much as I don't think it effected the result of the game. I originally came here to congratulate you on your win which was very much deserved as I thought you were by far the better team for the majority of the game and should have been way more than 10-0 up at HT. As much fun as it is to enjoy the misfortune of rival clubs, I'm actually happy to see you guys moving in the right direction. I'd prefer all of our big clubs to be firing on all cylinders as that's whats going to lead to a better comp and more exciting seasons. Not looking likely now, but would be great if you could keep hold of Arthur for a few more years.
Nah, if it had been a Leeds player i would think the same and be annoyed at them, calling it a ‘rugby league incident’ is a cop out, jumping with your knees first (he totally missed the ball by the way) is reckless. Do I think he intentionally kneed him in the head, no, but that’s the same with 99% of any head shots. Yellow was correct. Wilkins take that it was Alfie’s fault because it was a ‘pathetic attempt at a jump’ was ridiculous, and Jenna Brooks was no better when interviewing Wellens.
| | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 441 | St. Helens |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2014 | 11 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| christopher:The Reaper:
I'm surprised by everybody on here saying they think the Murphy yellow was correct. I have a sneaking suspicion that had it been the other way around, you'd be furious. For a start, Murphy isn't "the tackler" so rules about tackling don't apply. Saints were in possession, so he's the attacker. We see attackers go in with their knees out etc pretty much every charge. That said, the rules for tackling or carrying the ball aren't relevant anyway, as it was a contest in the air for the ball. It was a completely fair contest, both had eyes on the ball, nothing wrong with it whatsoever. When you jump, you stick your knee out for leverage. Watch literally any game of rugby back and see it happen multiple times a game, pretty much every single time anybody jumps for the ball... That's how you jump! Murphy has been penalised for A) Being able to jump high and B) for Edgell not bothering to jump at all, which is patently ridiculous. Particularly it's obviously not Murphy's fault that Edgell didn't even bother to attempt to contest the ball, nor is that something he can predict when he jumps. If Edgell leaves the ground at all, then the head contact can't possibly happen. What's even more ridiculous is that had he caught the ball, he'd probably have been AWARDED the penalty for being tackled in the air. Think the ruling was positively stupid. A contest in the air will always have elements of risk, and if these things are going to be called then you may as well just ban jumping for the ball. To me, this is in line with the Nu Brown red card incident last year. Yes, there is contact with the head but it's pretty clear it's nobody's fault and doesn't need punishment as it's a "rugby league incident" ie something that can just happen by playing the sport.
That said, don't wanna harp on it too much as I don't think it effected the result of the game. I originally came here to congratulate you on your win which was very much deserved as I thought you were by far the better team for the majority of the game and should have been way more than 10-0 up at HT. As much fun as it is to enjoy the misfortune of rival clubs, I'm actually happy to see you guys moving in the right direction. I'd prefer all of our big clubs to be firing on all cylinders as that's whats going to lead to a better comp and more exciting seasons. Not looking likely now, but would be great if you could keep hold of Arthur for a few more years.
Nah, if it had been a Leeds player i would think the same and be annoyed at them, calling it a ‘rugby league incident’ is a cop out, jumping with your knees first (he totally missed the ball by the way) is reckless. Do I think he intentionally kneed him in the head, no, but that’s the same with 99% of any head shots. Yellow was correct. Wilkins take that it was Alfie’s fault because it was a ‘pathetic attempt at a jump’ was ridiculous, and Jenna Brooks was no better when interviewing Wellens. Jumping with your knees first isn't reckless though, it's what 90% of people jumping for the ball do... Seriously you can watch any game of RL back and see it happen multiple times in every single one of them. He also hasn't been charged with anything by the MRP, which also suggest that he didn't break any laws. They're not exactly shy of charging our players, either
| | |
 | |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
|
POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD |
---|
19.67M | 1,551 | 80,283 | 14,103 |
|