You fcken bit me, dawg.

[Timmah]

All I'm doing is attempting to find the reason for Bumstead giving us the penalty, stop carrying on like I condone what happened.

 

[gong_eagle]

Carried on????????????

He did nothing wrong. Nothing. He tackled him....hard...end of story.
Do you have a severe case of conjunctivitis or a severe case of dumbshyte?

It was a solid Tackle, butt Morrin just brain snapped, I think he wanted to get up quicker to play the ball :lol:

 

[hineyrulz]

How is your question relevant?

We're talking about the rules of the game, not a random bloke on the street.

On the football field, retaliation to any sort of action is not acceptable. That is, IMO, why the Dogs would've earned the penalty.

I'm not talking about on the street, i'm talking about on the field FFS. And if you we're Tahu you would have done nothing????? and now your talking about Tahu's actions unacceptable, he was just bitten FFS. Imagine if Tahu had of bit Moron, you would change your tune quick smart.

 

[Mr Saab]

All I'm doing is attempting to find the reason for Bumstead giving us the penalty, stop carrying on like I condone what happened.

It was for the slap...thats it.
There was zero wrong with the tackle. How you can say he "Carried on within the tackle" is absurd. Open your fricken eyes, or perhaps change your name for the 1002nd time

 

[Timmah]

Learn. To. Read.

On the football field, retaliation to any sort of action is not acceptable. That is, IMO, why the Dogs would've earned the penalty.

 

[hineyrulz]

Learn. To. Read.

How many times can you get owned in a single day, you must be looking to break a new record.

 

[Timmah]

It was for the slap...thats it.
There was zero wrong with the tackle. How you can say he "Carried on within the tackle" is absurd. Open your fricken eyes, or perhaps change your name for the 1002nd time

I might just do that Charlie. ;-)

 

[Mr Saab]

You are a fool timmah and are exposed on here on an hourly basis.

 

[Timmah]

How many times can you get owned in a single day, you must be looking to break a new record.

Owned? You aren't reading what I'm saying.

It doesn't matter what Morrin did in the context of TAHU RETALIATING, which is supposedly why the penalty was given, as a few others have mentioned. I don't care about your assertions of Tahu, you seem to think it's Kosher for him to fight back when it's against the rules. Even funnier, you think I condone what Morrin did.

 

[Timmah]

You are a fool timmah and are exposed on here on an hourly basis.

Cool. Now go and clean up.

 

[Mr Saab]

That doesnt make it right

 

[Dr Crane]

All I'm doing is attempting to find the reason for Bumstead giving us the penalty, stop carrying on like I condone what happened.

Any idiot should be able to see why the Dogs got a penalty. He retaliated, but Hampsted didn't see the bite. If Hampsted had seen the bite he would have ignored the retaliation and would have given the Eels the penalty.

 

[Timmah]

He knew about the bite and still didn't reverse the penalty, that was what I found odd. :?

 

[Y2Eel]

How salivor saw it is most likely spot on. I'm in two minds about the tackle. From the other end it looks like Hindy possibly got him above the horizontal by the legs but that remains to be seen. Tahu's contact around the head was also dubious.

If those two are fine (which they well could be) then Morrin's bite is the first offence and Parra should've gotten the penalty.

The tackle by parra was fine then morrin bit Tahu which Dickstead didnt see and Tahu smacked morrin which dickstead di see and the reason why he didnt reverse the penalty was that dickstead dint see the bite.. except for the fact that it was on the replay and tahu had a big bite mark...

 

[brooksy19]

What a dog act by the Mark O'Meley wannabe.

The touchie was a classic, i was waiting for him to take a dna swab.

 

[Y2Eel]

He knew about the bite and still didn't reverse the penalty, that was what I found odd. :?

He said he didnt see it which is more like i dont want to know about it let the video review handle it i'm a skirt with a whistle...

 

[hineyrulz]

Owned? You aren't reading what I'm saying.

It doesn't matter what Morrin did in the context of TAHU RETALIATING, which is supposedly why the penalty was given, as a few others have mentioned. I don't care about your assertions of Tahu, you seem to think it's Kosher for him to fight back when it's against the rules. Even funnier, you think I condone what Morrin did.

FFS you are kidding yourself, i thought Tahu was quite controlled in the circumstances. Hide behind the rule book all you want, Tahu was bitten he reacted, nothing would of happened if moron didn't bite him.

 

[Timmah]

The bad decisions went in both directions you know ;-)

 

[Y2Eel]

The bad decisions went in both directions you know ;-)

No we dont know explain... ;-)

 

[Dr Crane]

He knew about the bite and still didn't reverse the penalty, that was what I found odd. :?

The touch judge didn't say "That was a bite". If the touch judge had confirmed it the penalty would have been reversed.

We can't blow penalties for what players say happened. I'm the first to say there was a bite (see right --->) but Hampsted could only penalise based on what he was told.

Now if the clubs and fans hadn't pissed and moaned about video refs getting involved all the time, i'm sure Harrigan woul have stepped in and said "penalty to the Eels".