Raiders still think they were robbed y matais try
- Thread starter Dan
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
-
We have been getting regular requests for users who have been locked out of their accounts because they have changed email adresses over the lifetime of their accounts. Please make sure the email address under your account is your current and correct email address in order to avoid this in the future. You can set your email address at https://silvertails.net/account/account-details
Canteen Worker
First Grader
C is arguing his point and sticking to it.
Fact - the player dropped the ball before he was touched!
Witt hit the shoulder of a player who was coming down due to the first tackler. His arm moved up and glanced the head, accidentally. The contact was slight and so the ref adjudicated no problem.
What C says is correct in that the onus is on the tackler not to attack the head of the player.
It was a 50-50 call and whilst we were lucky this time these things even themselves out.
It was not why Canberra lost the game and so their supporters can fool themselves if they like but they were beaten by a better team on the day!
Fact - the player dropped the ball before he was touched!
Witt hit the shoulder of a player who was coming down due to the first tackler. His arm moved up and glanced the head, accidentally. The contact was slight and so the ref adjudicated no problem.
What C says is correct in that the onus is on the tackler not to attack the head of the player.
It was a 50-50 call and whilst we were lucky this time these things even themselves out.
It was not why Canberra lost the game and so their supporters can fool themselves if they like but they were beaten by a better team on the day!
Im not the one Hell bent On everyone thinking im right as i said its your opinion only , as for Thinking Objectively sounds
like the Only opinion you value is your own , Nah im not into dying for the cause , One martyr in this forum is enough for me , Plus they Dont give out prizes for 2nd anyway , thats all from me , I was once Told if you Argue with an Fool it makes you a bigger fool
Some people know how to debate, others only know how to insult. You should just hang around with people who agree with you 100% all the time, otherwise you could get really angry and call them 'fools.'
I still don't know why you labelled me a martyr, it actually makes no sense in this context.
<span class='smallblacktext'>[ Edited Sat Apr 23 2005, 01:12AM ]</span>
You either dont read correctly or you are blinded by your own ignorance , you are the one who keeps going on and on about being right , its your opinion only , and you say i need to hang around with people who agree with me 100% of the time , You told me to chill out ummm you really think you upset me ? , Sometimes the odd jibe is part of debating, watch Question time you will understand , as far as your comment "Some people know how to debate, others only know how to insult" Some Can do both
In regard to your reference to me calling you a Martyr look up the definition you may understand , this is my final reply to this matter as im really quite bored with it
In regard to your reference to me calling you a Martyr look up the definition you may understand , this is my final reply to this matter as im really quite bored with it
fLIP
UFO Hunter
Jesus guys. Get a grip on yourselves. Sometimes these debates go too far. Its starting to get a little personal and really, a high tackle is based on personal opinion. Should a tackle be deemed to possibly cause injury? Witts tackle was a hold. He didn't swing his arm, he didn't grapple tackle. He didn't head slam. The player fell into his arm, part contact was with the shoulder(thats ok) and he didn't reef on the head or try to cause damage, their for only warranting a warning to keep them down. The ball was knocked free from monas arm and the try was scored. It, however sufficent head contact was made for the player to drop the ball then its a penalty but it wasn't.
If contact with the head is so scrutinised, why was morly's tackle laughed upon by every person in league? Accidental contact is OK as long as it does not look like causeing injury.
Manly supporter or not, I say try.
If contact with the head is so scrutinised, why was morly's tackle laughed upon by every person in league? Accidental contact is OK as long as it does not look like causeing injury.
Manly supporter or not, I say try.
It was laughed at by the general public because it wasn't a send off offense. It was, however, a penalty.
The rules say nothing about causing injury, totally ridiculous. One hit to the head doesn't cause injury but several leads to long term neurological damage. Yes, these are the risk that footballers take but the NRL official are not doctors, they can't start weighing up the risks of comparative tackles.
My point, it was a clear cut careless tackle and should have been given a penalty. It wasn't, I was happy and the try was awarded.
When it starts getting personal, I know I've won.
Canteen Worker
First Grader
How could a topic like this generate 6 pages???? :blah: :blah: :blah:
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
24 | 19 | 5 | 243 | 44 |
|
24 | 17 | 7 | 186 | 40 |
|
24 | 16 | 8 | 275 | 38 |
|
24 | 16 | 8 | 222 | 38 |
|
24 | 15 | 9 | 89 | 36 |
|
24 | 14 | 10 | 96 | 34 |
|
24 | 13 | 10 | 113 | 33 |
|
24 | 12 | 12 | -40 | 30 |
|
24 | 12 | 12 | -127 | 30 |
|
24 | 11 | 13 | -1 | 28 |
|
24 | 11 | 13 | -126 | 28 |
|
24 | 10 | 14 | -70 | 26 |
|
24 | 9 | 14 | -62 | 25 |
|
24 | 8 | 16 | -168 | 22 |
|
24 | 7 | 17 | -155 | 20 |
|
24 | 7 | 17 | -188 | 20 |
|
24 | 6 | 18 | -287 | 18 |
