Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Loiner

Luke Robinson

12 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

This #AskTheRef is proving useful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

It does seem to be implying dishonesty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 24th July 2017