London Broncos away

[graham fisher]

9 hours ago, SUPERSTUD said:

Having watched the highlights I now understand why the London player Bieneck came storming through a massive gap. Dixon was injured and behind tended to by the Dewsbury physio. Both were in the line of fire and the ref failed to stop play at a previous play the ball. If you watch the highlights package the home doctor then runs onto the field of play immediately after the try has been scored. Very very crafty. To cap it all he then rules Dixon out of the next game failing him without an HIA assessment. If you were that concerned get yourself straight on the pitch and stop the play. This took place at a crucial point of the game. True supporters are not conned by these kind of actions.

I noticed that straight away when watching the highlights,Ronan Dixon is down getting treatment so the referee should have stopped play. To cap it all off the London player runs straight through the gap where Dixon would have been. A another thing that stood out for me was how the hell that ground is up to professional standards?

[SUPERSTUD]

5 hours ago, graham fisher said:

I noticed that straight away when watching the highlights,Ronan Dixon is down getting treatment so the referee should have stopped play. To cap it all off the London player runs straight through the gap where Dixon would have been. A another thing that stood out for me was how the hell that ground is up to professional standards?

In the case of a player being injured the referee will probably use the default code of saying he will only stop play if the doctor runs on and requests him to. However I have two issues with the particular phase of play which occurred on Sunday.

1. The injured player and physio were directly in the line of fire. The London attack was coming directly towards them. Both could have sustained injury and therefore the referee should have stopped play at the previous play the ball.

2. The HOME doctor if he was that concerned should have run on straight away and requested the referee to stop play. He clearly waits until the try is scored before running on. 
 

This took place at a crucial point in the game. Some of the players remonstrated with the referee and we appeared to lose our composure from there on in.

 

As for the venue I will pass on that. It’s there for all to see.

   

[Blind side johnny]

3 hours ago, SUPERSTUD said:

In the case of a player being injured the referee will probably use the default code of saying he will only stop play if the doctor runs on and requests him to. However I have two issues with the particular phase of play which occurred on Sunday.

1. The injured player and physio were directly in the line of fire. The London attack was coming directly towards them. Both could have sustained injury and therefore the referee should have stopped play at the previous play the ball.

2. The HOME doctor if he was that concerned should have run on straight away and requested the referee to stop play. He clearly waits until the try is scored before running on. 
 

This took place at a crucial point in the game. Some of the players remonstrated with the referee and we appeared to lose our composure from there on in.

 

As for the venue I will pass on that. It’s there for all to see.

   

I disagree fundamentally with your interpretation. To suggest that a practising doctor would choose not to attend to an injured player because of some perceived bias is outrageous. Generally club doctors only enter the pitch when requested to by the physio or referee.

Whether the referee was correct in allowing play to continue is another matter.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Blind side johnny

[SUPERSTUD]

5 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

I disagree fundamentally with your interpretation. To suggest that a practising doctor would choose not to attend to an injured player because of some perceived bias is outrageous. Generally club doctors only enter the pitch when requested to by the physio or referee.

Whether the referee was correct in allowing play to continue is another matter.

Lol. Fancy that you disagreeing with me. A referee does not request a doctor to enter the field of play. The doctor has jurisdiction and power to run on. The referee will then stop the play and when players in effect complain the referee will often explain that they have no option due to the fact that the doctor has entered the field of play.

[SUPERSTUD]

5 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

I disagree fundamentally with your interpretation. To suggest that a practising doctor would choose not to attend to an injured player because of some perceived bias is outrageous. Generally club doctors only enter the pitch when requested to by the physio or referee.

Whether the referee was correct in allowing play to continue is another matter.

Also I would be interested to know when the Dewsbury physio and or the referee requested the doctor to enter the field of play. Because I know that neither did. 

[Crown Flatter]

14 hours ago, SUPERSTUD said:

Also I would be interested to know when the Dewsbury physio and or the referee requested the doctor to enter the field of play. Because I know that neither did. 

I think you should explain how you know. It’s all very well saying you “know”, but where’s the confirmation?

[Blind side johnny]

17 hours ago, SUPERSTUD said:

Lol. Fancy that you disagreeing with me. A referee does not request a doctor to enter the field of play. The doctor has jurisdiction and power to run on. The referee will then stop the play and when players in effect complain the referee will often explain that they have no option due to the fact that the doctor has entered the field of play.

And now you are nitpicking, again. You effectively accused the doctor of unprofessional behaviour - this is a very serious accusation to make of someone in such a profession. Maybe you shouldn't judge other people by your own standards?

Edited April 26, 2023 by Blind side johnny

[SUPERSTUD]

8 hours ago, Crown Flatter said:

I think you should explain how you know. It’s all very well saying you “know”, but where’s the confirmation?

The question you pose is a fair one. Hence I am posting this reply because I do not wish to be perceived as ignorant by posting no reply at all. The ultimate result now forms part of history. I am not going to elaborate on how I “know” as this could compromise others! I sincerely request that you trust me on this one.

 

 

 

 

 

[SUPERSTUD]

4 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

And now you are nitpicking, again. You effectively accused the doctor of unprofessional behaviour - this is a very serious accusation to make of someone in such a profession. Maybe you shouldn't judge other people by your own standards?

Ok here we go. First of all have you watched the match highlights? If so regarding the Bienek try what do you think? Do you also see the home doctors actions and if so what do you think?

[Blind side johnny]

13 hours ago, SUPERSTUD said:

Ok here we go. First of all have you watched the match highlights? If so regarding the Bienek try what do you think? Do you also see the home doctors actions and if so what do you think?

I fully believe that every medical professional acts according to the code of their profession and would not be influenced in this by any partiality that you perceive. Maybe you should ask our doctor at the next home game how often she works to enhance the outcome of matches, despite her professionalism. I expect that you would get an interesting reply.

[Lupset Ram]

Are you two having a competition to see who gets the last word in? 

We've got London Skolars this weekend by the way. 

[ramsfandan]

On 27/04/2023 at 08:51, Blind side johnny said:

I fully believe that every medical professional acts according to the code of their profession and would not be influenced in this by any partiality that you perceive. Maybe you should ask our doctor at the next home game how often she works to enhance the outcome of matches, despite her professionalism. I expect that you would get an interesting reply.

Is this you alf got to be loves a disagreement