Jump to content

Hemi4561

Coach
  • Posts

    385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Hemi4561's Achievements

208

Reputation

  1. I never used to to read the Guardian, I do now for it's comedy value. Sky and the Grauniad calling Saints the best RL team ever is absolutely conclusive proof that they aren't.
  2. If your user name indicates your team then it's no surprise that you can only live in reflected glory, and your hatred of Leeds, failures since 1964.
  3. No he did not, he tackled him around the hip area and the attacking players momentum provided the lifting force, simple physics.
  4. Martin's action was to tackle in a copy book manner, the risk of serious injury in this type of tackle is far less than in a lot of the chest/head swings that result in HIA assessments. You obviously disagree, but this type of tackle is without intent to injure, unlike the wild swings, or chicken wings, so to me is part of the game.
  5. Impact on the hips, no attempt to lift the attacking player or drive into the ground, momentum takes the player up, perfect one on one tackle, much better than shirt grabbing or swinging arms at the head.
  6. 50 years ago that would've been taught as perfect tackle technique. Martin not lomax.
  7. I do, Northern, Bulls, and everything associated with them is cow ordure. They bought their "success" with money they didn't have, they tried to undermine other professional clubs closest to them, they fleeced their own supporters, and those of other teams when they held out the begging bowl. Guess who I support.
  8. And I would love to see him get sent off in the first 30 seconds and then get a 5 match ban from the Disciplinary Panel.
  9. And this is the crux, if Lafai had not been fouled we would have a definite answer, the foul denied that certainty, so the benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacking side.
  10. As I recall the ball had not gone dead when the foul was committed. And this is my point about a kick through, it does not matter if you think the ball would have gone dead or not, if a chasing attacker is fouled to prevent them from following up the ball then it should be a penalty try. If the defender commiting the foul didn't think the attacker wasn't going to score why would they bother to commit the foul?
  11. The ball was in the in goal area and so was the foul Assume all the players are in half of the field and someone kicks through. An attacker chases the ball and a lone defender takes the attacking player out, the intent is clear, it should not matter if the ball is two meters in front of them or twenty two. Nor should it matter how close the ball is from the dead ball line, the foul has been committed for the sole purpose of preventing a potential try being scored. Penalty try and a red card.
  12. The ball was still in the field of play when the foul was committed, it should be given as a penalty try, no one knows where the ball would have gone, but what is certain is that the attacking player was prevented from following up the ball by foul play
  13. Not a Salford fan ever, detest them, but appalling decisions against them. They had no chance.
×
×
  • Create New...