Re: Fev-Hull : Sat May 12, 2018 12:24 pm  

bren2k wrote:

No - bren2k.

What's your point?

I was questioning whether you thought the flower incident was worse. Imo it was. The guy was already ko'd and he belted him again! That said I was sad with the chase incident especially when nothing really came after (not that that would have made it acceptable of course). I wanted to see a public apology, instead i was lied to by Richard Wright...

Re: Fev-Hull : Sat May 12, 2018 2:31 pm  

Faraimo red was spot on but taullapapo should have been a red too. There's no duty of care to the ball carrier at all. Even if Shaul does take the ball before the hit he was already on his knees and chances are the tackles direction would be deflected from the chest by the ball to the head area anyway. Some will disagree but whilst I like to see rugby as a tough sport I don't want to see players maimed or seriously injured through poor tackling.
The ball steal pen that hock won at the end was tosh too. He threw the ball down as he wanted a bit of biff as he always does. He's wasted his career with his thuggery as he was a quality player when not grubbing

Re: Fev-Hull : Sat May 12, 2018 2:51 pm  

Incidently I did notice peacock n sinfield both seemingly condemning hull before the cas v saints game calling it disgusting that we finished with 9 ,but seemingly skirting around feaths involvement in proceedings.they wouldn't be trying to pressure the rfl to punish hull before magic weekend would they ??.

Re: Fev-Hull : Sat May 12, 2018 4:12 pm  

majorhound wrote:

I've seen the game now. For the first twenty Fev were like the rabbit in the headlights, and it looked as if Hull would blow them away. But once Fev started playing, and Hull looked insecure, that's when the nasty stuff started. Holding down at the tackle, flops, holding the tackler down (Briscoe got sinbinned for that) A blatant high tackle on Briscoe on about 27 minutes, unpunished, and several knock-ons at the PTB which they got away with. The Hardcastle disallowed try was another example of the officials favouring Hull. The point of the ball clearly touched the ground, under control, before the Hull player intervened. Hull got away with so much for so long that they thought they could do what they liked, hence the carnage at the end. I'll admit that Taulapapa should probably have been yellow-carded, but it wasn't high despite what the Sky commentator said, it was early. The reaction of the Hull player after he obstructed Briscoe said it all about Hull. He should have got a red card for that smirk alone. I don't watch much Sky but their commentary team really are very biased against Championship clubs.

Careful Andy, your mask is s-s-slipping already.

Re: Fev-Hull : Sat May 12, 2018 10:15 pm  

majorhound wrote:

About what you'd expect from a brain dead Cas fan. The fact that Ropati had his jaw broken and didn't play for 12 weeks no doubt adds to your merriment.

I’m brain dead, but you consider a broken jaw the product of the worst ever challenge in rugby league.... not a broken neck or anything...... To$$er

Re: Fev-Hull : Sun May 13, 2018 8:31 am  

majorhound wrote:

I'll admit that Taulapapa should probably have been yellow-carded, but it wasn't high despite what the Sky commentator said, it was early.

This was a bad tackle and should have been a red card for me, a yellow card at an absolute minimum. It was only when the ref let this go that the game got out of hand. Both the ref and players are at fault for that. I expect several suspensions to be handed out.

Re: Fev-Hull : Sun May 13, 2018 9:53 am  

majorhound wrote:

I've seen the game now. For the first twenty Fev were like the rabbit in the headlights, and it looked as if Hull would blow them away. But once Fev started playing, and Hull looked insecure, that's when the nasty stuff started. Holding down at the tackle, flops, holding the tackler down (Briscoe got sinbinned for that) A blatant high tackle on Briscoe on about 27 minutes, unpunished, and several knock-ons at the PTB which they got away with. The Hardcastle disallowed try was another example of the officials favouring Hull. The point of the ball clearly touched the ground, under control, before the Hull player intervened. Hull got away with so much for so long that they thought they could do what they liked, hence the carnage at the end. I'll admit that Taulapapa should probably have been yellow-carded, but it wasn't high despite what the Sky commentator said, it was early. The reaction of the Hull player after he obstructed Briscoe said it all about Hull. He should have got a red card for that smirk alone. I don't watch much Sky but their commentary team really are very biased against Championship clubs.

I think you either watched that game with eyes closed or with just the clear Fev bias you display. The "high" shot on Briscoe, look again, Houghton tackles him fairly and he then bounces off Sike Manu. No contact to the head yet a penalty was awarded. If you really think Hull were "getting away with so much", you are clearly not an objective viewer of this game.


Featherstone have been renowned for rough house tactics for many years. They see a reckless collision by Taulapapa go unpunished and they up the niggle to spoiling levels.

That some on this and other threads are having a go at Jake Connor for winding up the opposition and actually think he should be disciplined for it is laughable. Andy Gregory made a career out of it.

Re: Fev-Hull : Sun May 13, 2018 10:03 am  

Sir Kevin Sinfield wrote:

This was a bad tackle and should have been a red card for me, a yellow card at an absolute minimum. It was only when the ref let this go that the game got out of hand. Both the ref and players are at fault for that. I expect several suspensions to be handed out.

Unfortunately Mickey Mouse won't be one of them. He was the catalyst for all the thuggery (from both sides) that followed.

Re: Fev-Hull : Sun May 13, 2018 11:02 am  

majorhound wrote:

I've seen the game now. For the first twenty Fev were like the rabbit in the headlights, and it looked as if Hull would blow them away. But once Fev started playing, and Hull looked insecure, that's when the nasty stuff started. Holding down at the tackle, flops, holding the tackler down (Briscoe got sinbinned for that) A blatant high tackle on Briscoe on about 27 minutes, unpunished, and several knock-ons at the PTB which they got away with. The Hardcastle disallowed try was another example of the officials favouring Hull. The point of the ball clearly touched the ground, under control, before the Hull player intervened. Hull got away with so much for so long that they thought they could do what they liked, hence the carnage at the end. I'll admit that Taulapapa should probably have been yellow-carded, but it wasn't high despite what the Sky commentator said, it was early. The reaction of the Hull player after he obstructed Briscoe said it all about Hull. He should have got a red card for that smirk alone. I don't watch much Sky but their commentary team really are very biased against Championship clubs.

So you expect a red card for smirking, but a yellow card for creaming someone who never had the ball...

Just look at that for a second, think about the balance and whether you're really being objective, then look back through the rest of your rubbish you've just posted. Maybe even watch the game with both eyes open. But everything you've said is pretty much the most biased view of a game I've ever seen!

Re: Fev-Hull : Sun May 13, 2018 9:20 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

So you expect a red card for smirking, but a yellow card for creaming someone who never had the ball...

Just look at that for a second, think about the balance and whether you're really being objective, then look back through the rest of your rubbish you've just posted. Maybe even watch the game with both eyes open. But everything you've said is pretty much the most biased view of a game I've ever seen!

I'd suggest you re-watch the game with your eyes open and your black and white specs firmly locked in a drawer; and preferably with the sound turned down. Hull were not innocent of niggling by any stretch of the imagination.