PDA

View Full Version : Potter's Dulls



oafcsaint
13th February 2011, 15:57
Looked great for over an hour, then the same old failings that blighted his two years here - namely a side that plays well for over an hour, has the game pretty much won - then a lack of stamina costs the win.

Encouragingly yesterday, we looked the stronger and definitely the more likely to win it at the death...

DD
13th February 2011, 16:03
Scandalous video ref decision at the end has cost them. How can anyone say for certain that Jones-Bishop would have touched it down?

Also, when Chev Walker's try was ruled out, which would have made it 34-10, it came off his arm even though it had deflected back onto it and he never played at it. Now, if you went to execute a tackle and it accidently hit your arm it would be deemed as play on, so what was the difference here? If they had scored that, Bradford could have won by a hat full.

The Chair Maker
13th February 2011, 16:04
Both teams looked decent, but some way behind Saints, Wigan and Huddersfield.

Defence was a big problem for both sides.
Leeds do however possess heaps of pace in their side and that got them out of a pickle today on more than one occassion.

Just got to see the final game now to give a very limited judgement on who is likely to be cellar dwelling or going for honours.

Albion
13th February 2011, 16:09
The rules under section 6 of the games laws states that:

'Penalty try (d) the Referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts irrespective of where the offence occurred'

For me there was too many Bradford players in the vicinity of the ball to certainly say that Leeds would have scored but I can understand why it was given. I suppose it's all on interpretation.

It ultimately cost Bradford the win.

Wanderer
13th February 2011, 16:09
Also, when Chev Walker's try was ruled out, which would have made it 34-10, it came off his arm even though it had deflected back onto it and he never played at it. Now, if you went to execute a tackle and it accidently hit your arm it would be deemed as play on, so what was the difference here? If they had scored that, Bradford could have won by a hat full.
But Bradford conceded a heap of penalties, they began looking tired in the second half and displaying very shabby defence. However, had they not conceded a heap of penalties, had they had the stamina to go the whole 80 and had they kept up their defensive work, they would not have had to rely upon the ref's decisions to win the match. They would have had it in the bag.

Agent Mulder
13th February 2011, 16:22
I felt that Bradford were robbed by the end of that game. some of the officials decisions had me scratching my head. Webbs knock on which ended in a Leeds try If Bradford had complained like Leeds would have he would probably gone to the screen. The season has started with officials controversional interpretations differing greatly between each game. Another long hard season of confusion I think.

Agent Mulder
13th February 2011, 16:25
The rules under section 6 of the games laws states that:

'Penalty try (d) the Referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts irrespective of where the offence occurred'

For me there was too many Bradford players in the vicinity of the ball to certainly say that Leeds would have scored but I can understand why it was given. I suppose it's all on interpretation.

It ultimately cost Bradford the win.

That is the key word here.

Tallahassee
13th February 2011, 16:44
One decision that I noticed when a
Bradford player was nearly tackled in goal,he had less of the ball over than Wellens did yesterday!

Barney Rubble
13th February 2011, 16:59
Thought bradford looked a load better. You can tell who is in charge though. The lack of fitness(prob due to the "bulk up") will cripple them this year if not sorted ASAP. From what i have seen this weekend they should make top 8.

Lex
13th February 2011, 19:19
That is the key word here.
Going off what I saw on the night in the ground, was there no mention on Sky about the Roby incident, and if they thought that he lost the ball before Tomkins pulled it away with his right hand, or did he really just lose control of the ball ? Also, what reason was given for the Shenton try being chalked off. I was too busy having a heated discussion as to why I thought it was a try, to see the reason given on the big screen.

Wanderer
13th February 2011, 19:52
Going off what I saw on the night in the ground, was there no mention on Sky about the Roby incident, and if they thought that he lost the ball before Tomkins pulled it away with his right hand, or did he really just lose control of the ball ?
I've just watched it back and the Sky guys thought that Sam Tomkins had pulled the ball out of Roby's hand, which he clearly did judging on the close up shot in slow motion.


Also, what reason was given for the Shenton try being chalked off. I was too busy having a heated discussion as to why I thought it was a try, to see the reason given on the big screen.
Sky guys thought Saints were hard done to by having that try chalked off (if you mean the second of Shenton's efforts). They thought Dixon had been offloading as he was brought down, which it certainly looked like given the movement of his arm, but Smith decided he lost control of the ball and so that meant he had to rule a no try.

RedVee Admin
13th February 2011, 23:00
who was the penalty try video ref?

Syd
13th February 2011, 23:06
Well played the bulls, took a great lead, looked happy and together, but they seemed to think their last try was job done to me. Felt sorry for them on the Chev Walker NO TRY, he kicks through, it bounces back of the leeds player, to me its play on, game on, TRY.

Well played the rhinos, they stepped it up, became super fast in everythign they did, looked mean and on a mission for that final quarter and took the spoils. They clearly still have the attacking prowess. They got back in it, kept calm, kept the ball alive, supported and took the spoils.

I am sure the bradofrd fans will be happy with what they saw, it was a lot better than the past couple of years dross on offer to them. And with record season ticket sales, and Mick Potter at the helm, good times may return to the hoel in the ground in yorkshire !!!

E Saint
13th February 2011, 23:40
who was the penalty try video ref?

Silverwood

maghullsaint
14th February 2011, 00:28
The penalty try decision was absolutely appalling, and I think all Bulls fans should rightly be livid. Penalty, yes, penalty try, no way.

RedVee Admin
14th February 2011, 01:17
Silverwood
Makes sense. It was one of the very few bits of magic that I saw and I said quite categorically to the people with me, who had yelled penalty try, "No way, the player was too far out and the ball was bouncing. There's no guarantee that he would have scored. If the ball was still then yes it's a penalty try but they'll never give one, he could have knocked on, the ball could have hit the dead ball line before he got to it, there has to be no doubt and there's loads of doubt with this one. It's a clear penalty and a sin binning offence too but no way on earth is it a penalty try... Oh, shows what I know..."

St Steve
14th February 2011, 06:19
Bloody he'll by the time that came out your gob they'd have converted the try and kicked off again

RedVee Admin
14th February 2011, 08:10
har har

HitTheWall
14th February 2011, 09:31
Where was that kicking game when he coached us? lol

yorkyrl
14th February 2011, 11:03
Bradford were robbed and look a lot better this time . Im sure Potter wont be bothered about the few potter bashers on here

little_frank
14th February 2011, 12:39
The Bulls surprised me tbh. I wasn't really expecting them to give Leeds much of a game, but they did look ok until the last 15-20 minutes.

Another contentious moment for me was Jones-Bishop's first try. All the pundits were waxing lyrical about Webb's cut out pass, but I'm convinced it was a mile forward.

Rant over. Roll-on Friday.

luckysaint
14th February 2011, 12:50
The Bulls surprised me tbh. I wasn't really expecting them to give Leeds much of a game, but they did look ok until the last 15-20 minutes.

Another contentious moment for me was Jones-Bishop's first try. All the pundits were waxing lyrical about Webb's cut out pass, but I'm convinced it was a mile forward.

Rant over. Roll-on Friday.

Me and my man though it was a mile forward too, typical Rhinos!
I thought their new winger showed promise - Ah Van, where has he been hiding in the Bradford area, as they seemed to think on sky that he was a local. Pity the Bulls ran out of steam.

DD
14th February 2011, 12:53
This was a referee's assessment

There's nothing in law or the on field policy about being '100% certain' just that in the opinion of the referee a try would have been scored but for the 'unfair play of the opposition'. The additional video referee policy is that the video... referee 'has to be CERTAIN that foul play took place' - to which the answer is a definite yes.

For me, the judgement is based on the position, speed and bounce of the ball, and the position and speed of the players.
The ball was almost rolling at the point of the foul, and my opinion is that the ball wouldve still been in play when Jones-Bishop got to it. A wicked bounce, in my opinion, was unlikely and, in my opinion, he would have grounded properly.

As for the players: Jones-Bishop was 10m or so away from the ball. The covering Bradford player was approx 15m. 5m is a hell of a lot to make up in that situation so, in my opinion, J-B would have got there. As for Raynor - he was a meter or two behind and, in my opinion, he'd only have got to the ball first by fouling again. So, in my opinion, a try would have been scored but for the foul play of the opposition.

Obviously my opinion only - and I'm a long, long way from that level - and I'm sure they'll be analysing it the death today in the office where they'll probably decide it was wrong. You could go on forever about being 100% certain of grounding but until the ball is grounded you'll never know, at which point it'd be a try anyway. The argument to that is are you 100% certain that he wouldn't have grounded the ball? If there's any doubt then the benefit goes to the attacking team - something that was law long before Sky started needlessly adding it to video ref decisions.

As for the Walker incident - harsh, I'd say.

hazzo21
14th February 2011, 23:27
DD, agree with you on this one. It was more likely than not that he would have scored and therefore I think the video ref was right to award a penalty try. If nothing else, the benefit if the doubt should go to the attacking team.
What I really couldnt understand was Phil Clarke going on about Raynor tackling him 'at the point of contact' and therefore it shouldnt even have been a penalty. Where does he get that from? I can maybe understand if Jones-Bishop had tried to catch the ball but as he kicked it, you cant haul the player down.

As for the Walker incident, although it did seem harsh, it clearly came off his arm and went forward so its a knock on.

Spider Ski
14th February 2011, 23:39
Bryn doesn't look right in a Bulls shirt. :(