Replies

      • This coming from a juvenile, smutty little twat that calls himself 'vertical smile'!!

        Fair dinkum! You're the sort of 'limited' person who watches re-runs of John Hopoate sticking his finger up players' dates and doing 'that's gold'!

        • Drinking Bundy OG and watching Fatty on the Footy Show box set. 

           

      • Stop with the bold italics. Your not in the office.

  • This reply was deleted.
    • Actually they ruled on the knick on bunker never checked the try as they could only rule on the captain's challenge.

      The system is confusing and ridiculous 

    • It's actually easy to be negative when you support this club

    • Flicking through your posts one would be mistaken for concluding you are this site’s most negative person. So often your comments are laced with a putdown against the other person, who, in the main are simply putting forward their opinion. I have said it before ‘pot calling kettle black’.   Chill, smell the roses, find a hobby. 

  • OK - so I am more than a little confoozed here.

    A tip on, that allegedly goes forward is now a Knock on?

    In the past tip ons, that travel forward have been called a forward pass.

    You will see one in the Cows (?) I think which is a forward pass.

    A knock-on is committed when, in an attempt to play at the ball, a player knocks the ball towards their opponents' dead ball line with their hands or arms and it touches either the ground, or an opposing player. However, the ball may be knocked back.

    At which point did the ball touch an opposing player or hit the ground?

    Another "Penalty" Peranara Pathetic Perfomance.

    The bottom line has become "If a player does not catch the ball 'cleanly' then it will be deemed a knock on regardless of the direction the ball may take after being touched" - That is now how 99.99% of these issues are adjudicated on field.

    THERE WAS NO KNOCK ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  •  Amazing what you can learn from all the geniuses on twitter, hey Offside?

    • I Don't have Twitter don't understand the attraction to it my mate sent that to me. 

      I think it should be a try but the way they rule most obstructions as a no try I and watching the play again if it was sent up for review it would of been interesting.

  • what the photo doesn't show is a milli second later the player is free to chase, Fergo from the position HE put himself in.. he wasn't impeded . Don't forget it was a tap on by king Gutherson .. that's how fast the play was .. so stop thinking about it 

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Stevo replied to Johnny Suede's discussion V’landys denies favouritism towards Storm & Lomax; Parra Leagues to back case "to the bitter end"
"One thing is for certain and that is Arthur Moses at the forefront of this. He would not be persuing this to the fullest without having everything in place for an Eels win, this bloke by all accounts is at the top of his game.
 "
17 minutes ago
LB replied to Johnny Suede's discussion V’landys denies favouritism towards Storm & Lomax; Parra Leagues to back case "to the bitter end"
"Phone calls are harder as you can't prove what was said unless it was tapped. Emails and the rest yeah. Parra had this in their back pocket for a while and were waiting for the final nail to drop and them threatening us with cap penalties was the…"
1 hour ago
LB replied to Johnny Suede's discussion V’landys denies favouritism towards Storm & Lomax; Parra Leagues to back case "to the bitter end"
"I am not saying we shouldn't try, just if we lose and it is a possibility even if slight, that's more likely what happens. If that does happen then it is us against the NRL mentality to fuel us."
1 hour ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries clearly states ....#29. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."
2 hours ago
More…