Re: You Robbing B****** Bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:35 am  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

Now you're just making things up. Unless these fans were waiting for at least an hour after the game to confront Bentham?

This is not a report from Uncle Jeff's son's wife's hamster's owner. It came from a friend whose word I do not doubt.

And by the way, why did he come to and go away from the match on the Saints bus???

Re: You Robbing B****** Bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:12 am  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Nobody contested that they'd both had calls for them. I'm specifically talking about potentially game winning scores being chalked off. In those circumstances the team has been robbed by such a decision. That's self evident.

It's those who are saying that we were given everything that I don't understand. Thankfully we got the one that mattered.

At the end of the day though, it doesn't concern me. He's given his explanation and it's time to leave it at that. Had he gone to the screen the result would have been the same. Use it as motivation for next time you play us if it's still concerning you.

Re: You Robbing B****** Bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:18 am  

I think if he had gone to the screen the game woild have ended as a draw and we would have gone to golden point. I think we know we would not have been awarded Broughys drop goal but we would have had a minute or so to compose and get set up to stop you getting close enough to have a shot at goal.

Re: You Robbing B****** Bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:34 am  

Ivor C&G Scarf wrote:

This is not a report from Uncle Jeff's son's wife's hamster's owner. It came from a friend whose word I do not doubt.

And by the way, why did he come to and go away from the match on the Saints bus???

He didn't.

Re: You Robbing B****** Bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:41 am  

Ivor C&G Scarf wrote:

This is not a report from Uncle Jeff's son's wife's hamster's owner. It came from a friend whose word I do not doubt.

And by the way, why did he come to and go away from the match on the Saints bus???

What is wrong with you people. Is your bitter hatred so bad that you will make stuff up to suit your argument.

Re: You Robbing B****** Bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:18 pm  

henderson on the super league show said walmsley lost the ball... so a knock on but we know what happened to level the scores

Re: You Robbing B****** Bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:23 pm  

brearley84 wrote:

henderson on the super league show said walmsley lost the ball... so a knock on but we know what happened to level the scores

Well if Henderson said it it must be true!?

The walmsley penalty was as soft as the savelio penalty that led to Leeds first try against us last week. For me, both were soft and not really worth calling up - but they were.

If we really want to argue about reffing decisions, I'd suggest there was far more evidence to suggest makinson scored vs Salford (that was ruled out) than there was for lunts first try (that was given)

Re: You Robbing B****** Bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:05 pm  

Lunts first try wasn't given it was disallowed for a non existent knock on!! sorry but lets get the facts right, you must of missed that one

Re: You Robbing B****** Bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:24 pm  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

He didn't.

you're correct he didnt - he was seen as he arrived. He was in his car which he then parked in the odeon carpark (naughty). He then got someone else to collect and drive his car away later..... wonder why??

Re: You Robbing B****** Bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:26 pm  

FLYINGPROP wrote:

Lunts first try wasn't given it was disallowed for a non existent knock on!! sorry but lets get the facts right, you must of missed that one

No, the first no try, where Lunt knocks on trying to put the ball down on lomax's leg was a correct decision. As soon as the ball hit lomaxs leg, it was a knock on (There are even wiganers on the saints board admitting it was the correct decision, usually we say black they say white!)

The Lunt try, which was given on the evidence of a saints hand being on the ball (which smith mistook for lunts left arm - from the far right corner, funny how no ones complaining that that camera angle was 120m away) seemed less conclusive than the saints "no try" vs Salford for makinson (an example I use given both were looking at the grounding) - since everyone (well not everyone, the more hyperbolic) on here is calling for consistency, where's the consistency in that?

I assure you, I've watched the game plenty! You now just seem to be complaining about every single decision that didn't go huddersfields way, regardless of whether it was the correct call or not.