120 replies to this topic

[Wiltshire Rhino]

Why is this man in the Leeds team? I can't stand him and I'm a Rhino's fan so how the rest of you feel about him is is beyond me but I'm sure you'll tell me.

He never leads the Leeds pack or does anything that gets the team back on the front foot. At best he's a very average player with too many medals for his talent.

He backed away from Radford yesterday and then only went back when he knew he couldn't get to him. COWARD!

Leeds got rid of Scrutton and kept Bailey. WHY? Problem is if Leeds tried to get rid of the bottle boy which team would take him?

Next season when Leeds play KR expect Mr Bailey to spend 80 mins keeping away from Mr Mason.

Ok, rant over. Thank you for your time.

Edited by Wiltshire Rhino, 05 September 2010 - 07:03 AM.

[Old Frightful]

A very refreshing post from a Leeds fan, I'm sure you won't mind me saying.

But there's no denying the fact he won you the game yesterday.

What I think Saturday's game showed us is that, occasionally, he brings out the same reaction from opponents as he does opposition fans. They can't stand to see him get away with his niggling cheap ones. Lee Radford will be desperately annoyed with himself for letting his frustration get the better of him but that's in the past now, apart from a possible visit to Red Hall, obviously.

Bailey has a superb physique, yet is an average/less than average go forward player and defender. So you've got to think, why does he keep his place when arguably better forwards are released?

See yesterday's game for your answer perhaps?

[Stan Doffarf]

Bailey showed how stupid he is in the Cup Final. One on one with a man half his size, a metre from the line and he failed to score. All he had to do was step to his right and there's no way Mathers could have stopped him, instead he had to play the big man, veered into Mathers trying to run over him, and gave Mathers and Anderson the opportunity to get underneath the ball.

Deeply stupid play at a key moment in the match.

[joe elliot]

the referee spoilt the game yesterday, 10 mins would of been good enough for both players.

[Bitofaboogie]

The issue is why does Bailey (along with some other Leeds players) get away with it repeatedly???

[AndyCapp]

Cos its Leeds

[Optimus]

A very refreshing post from a Leeds fan, I'm sure you won't mind me saying.

But there's no denying the fact he won you the game yesterday.

What I think Saturday's game showed us is that, occasionally, he brings out the same reaction from opponents as he does opposition fans. They can't stand to see him get away with his niggling cheap ones. Lee Radford will be desperately annoyed with himself for letting his frustration get the better of him but that's in the past now, apart from a possible visit to Red Hall, obviously.

Bailey has a superb physique, yet is an average/less than average go forward player and defender. So you've got to think, why does he keep his place when arguably better forwards are released?

See yesterday's game for your answer perhaps?

I mind you saying!
Not all Leeds fans are blinkered zombies!
Bailey is a complete pudding. Without Burgess and Peacock our pack on a whole look very poor.
We pass foward.
We panick to try and score on every set.
And we whinge like St Helens at the ref every time nothing goes our way. Sometimes even if it does!
We need a real re-think and maybe a different approach to refresh the lads. You don't become bad overnight but there is def something lacking.

[Old Frightful]

I mind you saying!
Not all Leeds fans are blinkered zombies!
Bailey is a complete pudding. Without Burgess and Peacock our pack on a whole look very poor.
We pass foward.
We panick to try and score on every set.
And we whinge like St Helens at the ref every time nothing goes our way. Sometimes even if it does!
We need a real re-think and maybe a different approach to refresh the lads. You don't become bad overnight but there is def something lacking.

Apologies.

The rest of your post doesn't say much for my team though, even allowing for the fact we were down to 12 players.

[Griff9of13]

Had to laugh at this that I received on Twitter:

"He was sent of for punching Ryan Bailey, whereas a lot in the game would have given him a medal" - Dave Woods, BBC Radio 5 Live

Just about sums him up.

Edited by Griff9of13, 05 September 2010 - 10:13 AM.

[Maximus Decimus]

Bailey is an idiot and should be nowhere near the England side.

However yesterday I think the ref got it right. Bailey elbowed Radford but Radford punched a man who wasn't punching back. That's pretty cowardly.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Bailey is an idiot and should be nowhere near the England side.

However yesterday I think the ref got it right. Bailey elbowed Radford but Radford punched a man who wasn't punching back. That's pretty cowardly.

Bailey elbowed a man that wasn't elbowing back.

Maybe Radford thought if he punched him enough times, he would fight back?

Of course, the only way Bailey would fight back is if there were people holding the other man back! It is hilarious and typical of Bailey's character when you see him get up calmly afterwards, look around, see Radford is restrained, and then make a show of himself. Had Radford been stood right next to him when he got up, he'd have bottled it.

[Bitofaboogie]

Bailey is an idiot and should be nowhere near the England side.

However yesterday I think the ref got it right. Bailey elbowed Radford but Radford punched a man who wasn't punching back. That's pretty cowardly.

Bailey provoked Radford with some unnecessary foul play, who then retaliated - both should have gone to the bin.

To send one off and leave the other unpunished was an outrage.

[Maximus Decimus]

Bailey provoked Radford with some unnecessary foul play, who then retaliated - both should have gone to the bin.

To send one off and leave the other unpunished was an outrage.

I see what you're saying but in my opinion there is a difference. A fight is one thing and whilst what Bailey did was bad, he was trying to get him off so that he could get up. Radford was hitting somebody who wasn't hitting back. I'm not against fighting in the game and I'm glad we're nowhere near Football where you get sent off for standing within 2 metres of another player, but as a sport we can't condone thuggery like that.

[Bitofaboogie]

I see what you're saying but in my opinion there is a difference. A fight is one thing and whilst what Bailey did was bad, he was trying to get him off so that he could get up. Radford was hitting somebody who wasn't hitting back. I'm not against fighting in the game and I'm glad we're nowhere near Football where you get sent off for standing within 2 metres of another player, but as a sport we can't condone thuggery like that.

I am not saying that thuggery should be condoned.

I am saying that Bailey's thuggery and Radford's thuggery should have been punished equally and proportionately to the offences that were committed.

This is not the first time this season that a Leeds player has gone competely unpunished for an offence of foul play whilst an opponent has been punished disproportionately for their actions and it is beginning to smell a little off to be honest.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I see what you're saying but in my opinion there is a difference. A fight is one thing and whilst what Bailey did was bad, he was trying to get him off so that he could get up. Radford was hitting somebody who wasn't hitting back. I'm not against fighting in the game and I'm glad we're nowhere near Football where you get sent off for standing within 2 metres of another player, but as a sport we can't condone thuggery like that.

I agree he should have probably gone. But Bailey not getting punished was an injustice, not just for the elbowing, but the carrying on afterwards.

It's sends out the wrong message. You can elbow someone in the head and kick off like a b*tch as much as you like afterwards when he hits you back, including throwing a head butt at a completely different player. Where's the consistency?

You can't hold down a player on the break one week (punishable by a penalty and a sin-binning for the offender), but the round after you not only don't get a card, you don't even get a penalty. Consistency?

You can ask the referee as much as you like to go to the screen one week for a try that many think was a clear double movement, but he will do nothing. The round after, he will go to the screen for an incident that was a clear cut try for all to see and even the video ref only looked at it once, with the only reason being all the Leeds players surrounded him. Consistency?

The same referee. One team is the same. Does he not like Hull? Is he influenced more by the other teams? I don't know. But there has to be some sort of reason why he would be completely different in his approach to exactly the same incidents. Referees miss incidents all the time, of that I can forgive them as they are only human. But when you have a full time professional referee making conflicting decisions within the space of two weeks in incidents he has a clear view of, you have to question his ability to carry out the job at hand.

I very rarely bash referees, and people on here can back me up on that. But this really infuriated me last night.

[MrFussy]

Hi all, first time poster long time reader here

Personally thought what happened yesterday was disgusting, if there was any argument at all that Radford should've been sent off (and I don't believe there was) then I suppose it was for striking when Bailey wasn't in a position to defend himself - but that said after taking elbows to the head who could possibly blame him for retaliating? It was Bailey who should've been sent off (or at the very least both should have received an equal punishment), not only did he try and attack a restrained Radford but also attempted to jump round Ryan Hall to head butt Sean Long yet incredibly this was overlooked. At least Long stood there laughing at him afterwards...

Perhaps if Bailey does actually get banned this time it'll be the best thing possible for him and for Leeds, without opposition players having to focus on stopping Peacock he's going to be a marked man for the rest of the season, while as you say, Wiltshire Rhino, he offers very little to the side in attack or defence. Stick an under 20 in there if you have one on the fringes of the first team (don't know because I don't support Leeds), couldn't do any worse a job for you than Bailey has in the last two weeks.

It's appalling to think that this incident and the officiating that went with it has played a major role in one team climbing to fourth and another dropping to sixth. Fair play to Peacock though, when interviewed on the touchline at least he wouldn't condone the decision to send Radford off.

Anyway rant over, will look forward to discussing things with you all on here

[WearyRhino]

Ryan is a walking penalty machine with limited footballing talent and I would not shed a tear if he left Headingley. However, he is also the sort of player that winds up the opposition and distracts them from the job in hand and occasionally leaves them one player short. Wrongly or rightly this is seen as an asset by some coaches and as much as I dislike it myself I can see that reducing Oz to 12 men in a test match might be a tempting tactic.

[hindle xiii]

And this seven days after his doings on Chris Riley at Wembley in the last minute of the game. (Although there may have been more in that match I've forgotten about.)

[Old Frightful]

Hi all, first time poster long time reader here

Personally thought what happened yesterday was disgusting, if there was any argument at all that Radford should've been sent off (and I don't believe there was) then I suppose it was for striking when Bailey wasn't in a position to defend himself - but that said after taking elbows to the head who could possibly blame him for retaliating? It was Bailey who should've been sent off (or at the very least both should have received an equal punishment), not only did he try and attack a restrained Radford but also attempted to jump round Ryan Hall to head butt Sean Long yet incredibly this was overlooked. At least Long stood there laughing at him afterwards...

Perhaps if Bailey does actually get banned this time it'll be the best thing possible for him and for Leeds, without opposition players having to focus on stopping Peacock he's going to be a marked man for the rest of the season, while as you say, Wiltshire Rhino, he offers very little to the side in attack or defence. Stick an under 20 in there if you have one on the fringes of the first team (don't know because I don't support Leeds), couldn't do any worse a job for you than Bailey has in the last two weeks.

It's appalling to think that this incident and the officiating that went with it has played a major role in one team climbing to fourth and another dropping to sixth. Fair play to Peacock though, when interviewed on the touchline at least he wouldn't condone the decision to send Radford off.

Anyway rant over, will look forward to discussing things with you all on here

Welcome aboard mate, especially with fine upstanding opinions like that.

[Bitofaboogie]

Ryan is a walking penalty machine with limited footballing talent and I would not shed a tear if he left Headingley. However, he is also the sort of player that winds up the opposition and distracts them from the job in hand and occasionally leaves them one player short. Wrongly or rightly this is seen as an asset by some coaches and as much as I dislike it myself I can see that reducing Oz to 12 men in a test match might be a tempting tactic.

It's an interesting point that you make because it is clear that Bailey and other Leeds players are serial offenders on the foul play/backchat front and that this situation is not going to change anytime soon. It is about time that the Leeds coaching staff were pulled up before the beak in order to answer for the actions of their players.