20 Jun: SL: London Broncos v Hull Kingston Rovers KO 7.45pm (TV)

[Hughsehhh]

Poor decisions, two in a row cost the broncos and hull kr score 

[marklaspalmas]

Awful reffing.

[Man of Kent]

8-6 London HT. Enjoyed that

[Just Browny]

Good game of rugby. Well-matched, both teams trying to move the ball, tough defence, few stoppages.

[Davo5]

Enjoyable half of rugby,Abdul & Walker outstanding,such a shame they won't be at the Broncos next season,Rovers very lucky to be only 2 points in arrears.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

Good game from what I saw, signal went down at one point and missed the KR try. London try was fantastic, really enjoying watching them when they're at full flow. Come on London, get yourselves off bottom of that table. 

[fevtom]

I wonder if that Hull KR try would’ve been chalked off if London had let them go straight down the field and score. Might have been worth the risk considering it would have been restarted with a London penalty!

[Click]

Gotta say I feel really sorry for Matty Gee - I don't think he has had his name said once for any of his runs. It's always another player that's apparently carrying it...  Luke Yates got credit twice, and then Nathan Mason gets a run before he's even on the field!

[MZH]

I don't think those two decisions that led to Rovers' try were that bad tbh. The obstruction probably was a penalty, but Drinkwater got in the position first and is allowed to then stand his ground. The problem was he had a little look to see where Walker was and then took half a step across him. I would have given a penalty, but it was marginal.

The ball steal was the right decision imo. I think at the point where the tackle was completed Shaw did still have possession. It was only after they rolled over that Morgan took it off him. I thought that one could have actually been a penalty to Rovers.

And I say all that as someone who really wants London to win tonight.

[Just Browny]

1 minute ago, fevtom said:

I wonder if that Hull KR try would’ve been chalked off if London had let them go straight down the field and score. Might have been worth the risk considering it would have been restarted with a London penalty!

Shaw (?) had slowed down so much over the last ten yards he still wouldn't have got there now.

[MZH]

Just now, Click said:

Gotta say I feel really sorry for Matty Gee - I don't think he has had his name said once for any of his runs. It's always another player that's apparently carrying it...  Luke Yates got credit twice, and then Nathan Mason gets a run before he's even on the field!

It made me laugh when Proe actually referenced Mason being 6 ft 6 and then still got them mixed up.

[DavidM]

I thought the ball steal was fine . His momentum was still going and I didn’t hear the ref call the tackle over . looked a  fair one on one strip.

[Click]

Just now, MZH said:

I don't think those two decisions that led to Rovers' try were that bad tbh. The obstruction probably was a penalty, but Drinkwater got in the position first and is allowed to then stand his ground. The problem was he had a little look to see where Walker was and then took half a step across him. I would have given a penalty, but it was marginal.

The ball steal was the right decision imo. I think at the point where the tackle was completed Shaw did still have possession. It was only after they rolled over that Morgan took it off him. I thought that one could have actually been a penalty to Rovers.

And I say all that as someone who really wants London to win tonight.

By he had a little look, I assume you mean that he turned around 180 degrees... I agree with the ball steal point though, the tackle was already completed. It just never should of happened in the first place.

[Just Browny]

1 minute ago, MZH said:

It made me laugh when Proe actually referenced Mason being 6 ft 6 and then still got them mixed up.

Oh dear.

[MZH]

3 minutes ago, fevtom said:

I wonder if that Hull KR try would’ve been chalked off if London had let them go straight down the field and score. Might have been worth the risk considering it would have been restarted with a London penalty!

When I am watching Hull and we get the ball in dubious circumstances I often find myself saying don't score, just take the tackle haha.

[MZH]

1 minute ago, Just Browny said:

Oh dear.

Oops. Pyke.

I think that might be the definition of irony.

[MZH]

3 minutes ago, Click said:

By he had a little look, I assume you mean that he turned around 180 degrees... I agree with the ball steal point though, the tackle was already completed. It just never should of happened in the first place.

Yes I might have been a bit generous there. As I said, I would have given the penalty.

[Man of Kent]

Quinlan try. Fine effort 

10-8 KR after 42

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

5 minutes ago, MZH said:

I don't think those two decisions that led to Rovers' try were that bad tbh. The obstruction probably was a penalty, but Drinkwater got in the position first and is allowed to then stand his ground. The problem was he had a little look to see where Walker was and then took half a step across him. I would have given a penalty, but it was marginal.

The ball steal was the right decision imo. I think at the point where the tackle was completed Shaw did still have possession. It was only after they rolled over that Morgan took it off him. I thought that one could have actually been a penalty to Rovers.

And I say all that as someone who really wants London to win tonight.

So he didn't stand his ground? Definite penalty then.

[Man of Kent]

Shaw converts. 12-8 KR on 44

[MZH]

1 minute ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

So he didn't stand his ground? Definite penalty then.

Again, as I said, I would have given a penalty.

[Man of Kent]

Is Stuart Pearce a HKR coach?

[Man of Kent]

Atkin under the sticks for another KR try. 16-8 KR

[Man of Kent]

Shaw converts. 18-8 KR after 47

[meast]

9 minutes ago, MZH said:

It made me laugh when Proe actually referenced Mason being 6 ft 6 and then still got them mixed up.

You mean Pyke?

Easy to make mistakes isn't it