Anyone Else Receiving Rubbish From Dragqueens

[Guest]

irrelevant

we're talking about the scrum, not what happened before it

999 times out of 1000 that scrum's either a penalty Tigers or repacked

if another side got that break when playing against us, you'd be complaining about it for years

Its not irrelevant, the ref imo let it go because of the previous play!!

A fair decision.

[Guest]

Its not irrelevant, the ref imo let it go because of the previous play!!

A fair decision.

lol

you're terribly deluded

[Andrew Walker]

irrelevant

we're talking about the scrum, not what happened before it

999 times out of 1000 that scrum's either a penalty Tigers or repacked

if another side got that break when playing against us, you'd be complaining about it for years

You are a fool. It is not irrelvant at all.Simple fact had a penalty been given which by the rules of the game it should have.There would have been no scrum for you to talk about

[Guest]

You are a fool. It is not irrelvant at all.Simple fact had a penalty been given which by the rules of the game it should have.There would have been no scrum for you to talk about

lol

how far back to we go Andy? Just the play before?

Or do we go back maybe 5 or 10 minutes and say "Well, such and such happened 10 minutes ago, that decision was wrong and should have gone in St George's favour. Therefore Morris having his legs in touch was the right call because that balances everything out, and if the correct call had been made 10 mins ago, there'd be no Morris incident to talk about"

the decision that favoured us re the Wests Tigers scrum was as bad, if not worse, than any call that went against us last season.

What happened immediately prior, 10 minutes prior, 20 mins prior, or last month, has nothing to do with it

If you're going to complain when any other side gets a lucky break over us, then you need to acknowledge when we get the breaks

now read this again (slowly), and see how you go

[Guest]

You are a fool. It is not irrelvant at all.Simple fact had a penalty been given which by the rules of the game it should have.There would have been no scrum for you to talk about

Exactly, the refs knew he got him high and it's a penalty any day of the week. Refs on the field were expecting the call from the VR which didn't happen. FPN was offside but it was justice in the end.

[TheLoneRooster]

lol

how far back to we go Andy? Just the play before? ...

There should not have been a scrum in the first place for the reasons already mentioned by others. As far as I'm concerned, the two events are related and really can't be seen as two plays because the illegal hit to JWH's head caused him to drop the ball and thus create the possibility for one of two outcomes - a penalty to the Roosters (the correct decision) or a scrum with the tigpies feed. Are you really a Roosters supporter? Really???

As for 4"'s usual drivel today, the Roosters were the best team in 2004 but LOST the GF in controversial circumstances (El Masri's "try"). Interesting how the "best team all year" (the Roosters) didn't get the rub of the "GF green" in 2004 like your merge scum did this year.

[Andrew Walker]

lol

how far back to we go Andy? Just the play before?

Yes seeing that was the definative moment in the match that will do. The rest of your post is nothing more than inane rambling.Which is why I havent quoted it.

[novice chook]

Geez, we got one ref's decision in our favour all year and TOK wants to harp on it. No mention of all the ones that didn't, including the play before the contentious scrum which was a deadset penalty only the officials didn't have the balls to call it as such because Dwyer's indescretion on JWH was in front of the posts and it would have cost the Tigers the game. What happened after does not change that fact TOK. There would have been no need for the scrum or the field goal that followed because the game would have been over with the Roosters winning.

Just as the officials didn't have the balls to penalise Smith in the Drag Queen/Tigers match which would have cost the Drag Queens the match.

The Drag Queens have had 95% of the 50/50 calls go their way in the past 2 years since Bennett joined them. Even that couldn't stop them choking in 2009 but it was enough to get them over the line in 2010.

I don't mind any team having the occasional stroke of 'good luck' re dodgy ref decisons, but when it happens on a regular basis over 2 seasons, something is not right. And something definitely stinks about the way the Drag Queens have been given the consistent 'benefit of the doubt' by the officials in recent years.


NC

[Guest]

Yes seeing that was the definative moment in the match that will do. The rest of your post is nothing more than inane rambling.Which is why I havent quoted it.

oh, so we only go back 1 play because that was "the definitive moment" in the match?

Maybe we can write the term "definitive moment" into the rulebook, and apply the rules differently based on whether or not something occurred in "the definitive moment" of a match, or at another "less definitive moment"

it's no-counts like you Andy who give the rest of us good Roosters supporters a bad name

try and be a bit less retarded please

[Andrew Walker]

oh, so we only go back 1 play because that was "the definitive moment" in the match?

Maybe we can write the term "definitive moment" into the rulebook, and apply the rules differently based on whether or not something occurred in "the definitive moment" of a match, or at another "less definitive moment"

it's no-counts like you Andy who give the rest of us good Roosters supporters a bad name

try and be a bit less retarded please

No need to write it in the book. Any sane person knows there and then the hit on JWH was the definative moment of the match,which would have seen Easts awarded a penalty and us more than likely win the match seeing it was right in front of the sticks.Had the officials made the right call There would have been no need for a scrum. Any sane person knows the refs allowed what happened in the scrum because they knew it was a pernalty earlier.Two wroings normally dont make a right but on this occassion I and many others think it did.

Obviously the truth has you and your inane rambling stumped as it has seen you resorting to petty insults.

Finally spare us the good Roosters supporter bit Everyone on here who as half an ounce of common sense knows you are not a Roosters supporter

[Guest]

No need to write it in the book. Any sane person knows there and then the hit on JWH was the definative moment of the match,which would have seen Easts awarded a penalty and us more than likely win the match seeing it was right in front of the sticks.Had the officials made the right call There would have been no need for a scrum. Any sane person knows the refs allowed what happened in the scrum because they knew it was a pernalty earlier.Two wroings normally dont make a right but on this occassion I and many others think it did.

Obviously the truth has you and your inane rambling stumped as it has seen you resorting to petty insults.

Finally spare us the good Roosters supporter bit Everyone on here who as half an ounce of common sense knows you are not a Roosters supporter

ah yes Andy, the standard response of the one-eyed Chookpen member when their lunacy becomes apparent

"You're not a Roosters supporter"

that's clever stuff Andy

lol

[Guest]

No need to write it in the book. Any sane person knows there and then the hit on JWH was the definative moment of the match,which would have seen Easts awarded a penalty and us more than likely win the match seeing it was right in front of the sticks.Had the officials made the right call There would have been no need for a scrum. Any sane person knows the refs allowed what happened in the scrum because they knew it was a pernalty earlier.Two wroings normally dont make a right but on this occassion I and many others think it did.

Obviously the truth has you and your inane rambling stumped as it has seen you resorting to petty insults.

Finally spare us the good Roosters supporter bit Everyone on here who as half an ounce of common sense knows you are not a Roosters supporter

I think TOK is a Roosters supporter. The bloke is just against a fair bit of crap that goes on here. There is the TOK Roosters supporter, and the dellusional Roosters supporters that frequent this site.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have the balance in between!

[Guest]

ah yes Andy, the standard response of the one-eyed Chookpen member when their lunacy becomes apparent

"You're not a Roosters supporter"

that's clever stuff Andy

lol

Beat me too it. I'm the biggest Rooster supporter. I have even shaken all there hands. I am also making the biggest banner for next year. I just can't get anyone to hold it.

[Andrew Walker]

ah yes Andy, the standard response of the one-eyed Chookpen member when their lunacy becomes apparent

"You're not a Roosters supporter"

that's clever stuff Andy

lol

The only one being a lunatic here is yourself. Again you post derfelcting away from the bulk of what is said.As you know it to be true

[Kingbilly]

You can't mention the incorrect decision in the scrum without mentioning the incorrect decision just before it with the hit on JWH.

To toot your little trumpet about getting the rub of the green re the scrum yet ignore the high shot is one eyed stupidity regardless of who you support