Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Luke Robinson


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Loiner

Loiner
  • Coach
  • 331 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:16 PM

Can anyone explain how Robinson managed to get away with the head high late shot on the Catalans player ? Two saints players recently received bans for the same thing.



#2 amh

amh
  • Moderator
  • 11,086 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:23 PM

No case to answer when reviewed

 

http://www.examiner....tsWidget-bottom


Whilst I do not suffer fools gladly, I will always gladly make fools suffer

A man is getting along on the road of wisdom when he realises that his opinion is just an opinion


#3 guess who

guess who
  • Coach
  • 4,046 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 07:17 PM

No case to answer when reviewed

 

http://www.examiner....tsWidget-bottom

 

And i should think so as well. There was noting in it.



#4 Brigg Rover

Brigg Rover
  • Coach
  • 1,985 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 07:28 PM

Can anyone explain how Robinson managed to get away with the head high late shot on the Catalans player ? Two saints players recently received bans for the same thing.

Maybe because he did not hit the guy with a head high shot at all? From the TV reply he tackled the guy across the chest without the ball.

#5 RSN

RSN
  • Coach
  • 4,257 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 10:30 PM

I didn't even think it was a sin bin never mind red. Robinson took a much worse shot earlier in the game.

#6 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,157 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 06:45 AM

Video ref looked at it and decided it was a red.

 

This #AskTheRef is proving useful!


If you use "should of", "would of" or "could of", you are a moron.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.

 


#7 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,059 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:32 AM

4 posts deleted, 1 main and 3 others quoting it.

 

It is a long established policy of this forum that we WILL NOT accept people calling referees "bent" or any other similar term implying dishonesty.  You can question their competence all day long if you so desire but you cannot question their honesty.  If you want to rant about referee honesty then go elsewhere.

 

Infringements to that policy will see you get either a suspension from the forum or an outright ban depending on your past conduct.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#8 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,207 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:48 AM

Alright

The refs were downright incompetent from start to finish for reasons I stated earlier and heavily in the favour of the home team

#9 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,366 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 11:02 AM

Alright

The refs were downright incompetent from start to finish for reasons I stated earlier and heavily in the favour of the home team

The second part of this statement pretty much ignores Craig's warning
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2015 - the hard work starts now

#10 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,207 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:50 PM

No it doesn't, it totally complies with the acceptable questioning

#11 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,453 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:53 PM

No it doesn't, it totally complies with the acceptable questioning

It does seem to be implying dishonesty


St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.

Moderator of the International board

#12 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,059 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 02:25 PM

Alright

The refs were downright incompetent from start to finish for reasons I stated earlier and heavily in the favour of the home team

There are two ways to read that:

 

Meaning 1:  The ref was rubbish and coincidentally all his rubbish decisions were against the away team.

Meaning 2:  The ref was rubbish and he was influenced by the home team/crowd into making decisions against the away team

Meaning 3:  The ref was rubbish and he was also heavily in favour of the home ream.

 

Meaning 1 is acceptable but would need a detailed explanation to justify.

Meaning 2 has a far higher burden of proof and would most likely get binned

Meaning 3 is only acceptable if you have indisputable proof that you can get John Drake to accept before you post it.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users