Knights v Storm spoiler

[Jatz Crackers]

It's blatantly obvious you make your way into the Manly v Souffs game thread then. If you did you wouldn't have made such a stupid comment :lol:

Yep. The tell tale twinge of regret that you know what I said is true.

Your probably more balanced than most storm fans, but still. You blokes cant help yourselves.

 

[Tom Shines]

I think you're selling Manly fans short by not including them in that group tbh :lol:

As for the water on the ball whinge... FMD what will they complain about when that wet stuff FALLS FROM THE f**kING SKY?

Wouldn't most of the water have flown off by the time it gets down the other end due to centrifugal force?

 

[Evenflow]

Yep. The tell tale twinge of regret that you know what I said is true.

Your probably more balanced than most storm fans, but still. You blokes cant help yourselves.

Not one ounce of regret here mate as i said mate, i actually thought the lopsided penalty count was fair enough today because we were laying all over them and we were undisciplined. As for the Cronk/Boyd thing i'm only calling it as i see it. While Cronk flew the arm out and impeded him somewhat there was no way it was enough to bring Boyd to the ground like he did which is why the refs called it as they did. If it was honestly enough to bring him to ground then then he shouldn't be playing the game.

Fair dinkum we have threads at the moment lamenting the fact that players dive and what a scourge on the game it is which i totally agree with, but then when someone goes down when most likely he shouldn't have most are in uproar about.

Again Cronk made a play at him when he wasn't entitled to and rightly got a penalty against him but the severity of the contact (or lack of it) didn't warrant 10 in the bin IMO. I don't expect most to agree with me there but that's ok as they're also fully entitled to their opinion as well.

 

[Alex28]

Yes but they certainly stopped doing it after Cronk made the complaint, didn't they?

Cronk shouldn't have been on the f***ing field to make the complaint!

 

[PoWdErFiNgEr84]

It's not the first time Cronk has done that. Massive call considering the score at the time.

 

[otori]

Not one ounce of regret here mate as i said mate, i actually thought the lopsided penalty count was fair enough today because we were laying all over them and we were undisciplined. As for the Cronk/Boyd thing i'm only calling it as i see it. While Cronk flew the arm out and impeded him somewhat there was no way it was enough to bring Boyd to the ground like he did which is why the refs called it as they did. If it was honestly enough to bring him to ground then then he shouldn't be playing the game.

Fair dinkum we have threads at the moment lamenting the fact that players dive and what a scourge on the game it is which i totally agree with, but then when someone goes down when most likely he shouldn't have most are in uproar about.

Again Cronk made a play at him when he wasn't entitled to and rightly got a penalty against him but the severity of the contact (or lack of it) didn't warrant 10 in the bin IMO. I don't expect most to agree with me there but that's ok as they're also fully entitled to their opinion as well.

That's absurd. He deliberately tackled a player without the ball that prevented any chance of him contesting the bomb. Just because he didn't wrap him up around the legs means its not a sin binning? By that logic you shouldn't go on report unless you break someone's neck

 

[Jobdog]

Compare that to the ball tampering allegations that are no doubt going to come out of this game will overshadow the "cheating" of a professional foul.

:lol: So what happens when it rains? Is Cronk going to whinge to the ref that it's raining?

 

[footy75]

It should of been a sin bin but so should of Reynolds...and that wasn't...at least they are consistent lol

 

[Cerne Abbas Giant]

That's absurd. He deliberately tackled a player without the ball that prevented any chance of him contesting the bomb. Just because he didn't wrap him up around the legs means its not a sin binning? By that logic you shouldn't go on report unless you break someone's neck

TBH I don't think Boyd could have contested the ball.

 

[Evenflow]

By that logic you shouldn't go on report unless you break someone's neck

and you call me absurd, talk about going from one extreme to another! lol Once again, like i said while there was a penalty warranted it wasn't enough to warrant 10 in the bin.

Whether you like it or not Boyd made it look much worse than it actually was by dropping like Inglis did the other night. Have a look at it again and you honestly think what Cronk did caused Boyd to legitimately fall to the ground like he did then you should really give the game away mate.

 

[Noname36]

It doesn't f**king matter if Boyd went down like he was shot or didn't go down at all...Cronk still deliberately interfered and should have been sent to the bin like anyone else would have.

It's pretty simple.

 

[BunniesMan]

The Storm are a protected species. We all know it. We just have to accept it. Their star players never get suspensions for dog acts.

 

[Evenflow]

It doesn't f**king matter if Boyd went down like he was shot or didn't go down at all...Cronk still deliberately interfered and should have been sent to the bin like anyone else would have.

It's pretty simple.

So are you saying that people who play for penalties ie. milk penalties by going down when they shouldn't should actually be awarded?

No wonder the game has become so f**king soft when some people actually encourage it.

 

[footy75]

The Storm are a protected species. We all know it. We just have to accept it. Their star players never get suspensions for dog acts.

ok

 

[macavity]

The Storm weren't "ill-disciplined" today, the penalties were for the most part deliberate. They knew what they were doing and derived conscious benefit from foul play. If every penalty worthy act was penalised today, they would have given away double and if the refs were serious had a few binned.

Trust Melbourne to act outside the spirit of the game. Same old Melbourne, always cheating.

 

[Evenflow]

The Storm weren't "ill-disciplined" today, the penalties were for the most part deliberate. They knew what they were doing and derived conscious benefit from foul play. If every penalty worthy act was penalised today, they would have given away double and if the refs were serious had a few binned.

God help us or god help you and i aren't even a religious man, i see someone else takes the channel 9 commentary teams word as gospel :lol:

 

[macavity]

I was at the game, no idea what channel 9 had to say.

Most Storm fans have NFI about rugby league football, so I appreciate you probably can't understand these concepts. Just keep talking about how hot billy is or whatever else you lot think passes for analysis of the game.

 

[Evenflow]

Most Storm fans have NFI about rugby league football, so I appreciate you probably can't understand these concepts.

So after 16 years in the comp people are still actually using that old chestnut? :lol:

 

[Dani]

Should have been 10. Slater should have been binned last week too for holding down.

 

[Cerne Abbas Giant]

Don't bend over for these softcoqs Dani.