Not one of them penalties, more the off the cuff penalties for messing about at the ruck, laying on etc

.

You know which one’s we’re on about, the ones where the bias of the referee comes into play.

The cheating Aussie lover penalties

.

You're missing the point. The on-field referee didn't give England a penalty in the 2nd half.

His brother, however, did give one, the obstruction which was too obvious for even him to ignore.

So yes, while 5-0 overall is incorrect, it's still correct to say the referee awarded 5 penalties to Australia and none to England.

I'm not missing anything. I didn't realise a penalty only counts toward the total count if it is given by the onfield referee.

You have to commend the Aussies on their ability to put almost every single England kicker on his back for a whole game without once being late in the tackle or offside in getting there




JEEZ they're good

Guilty as accepted, but, with some codicils implanted.
I do not find it difficult either to accept if I have made a wrong judgement. Better that than to remain knowing I was in error and yet would not admit to it.

See, entirely missing the point. I can only hope deliberately.

Just watching Tonga verses The ' Cooks' from 364 nights ago to ' cleanse ' myself of the dirty stench of sundays game

Again, I'm not missing anything. People are saying England did not get a penalty in the 2nd half wben they obviously did. One. Why are you getting so agitated about this?

' missing ' no, ignoring, yes

Agitated? Please, there are many posters far better at fishing for a rise, in this thread alone. That was feeble.

I've explained it once and you completely ignored it. That's your right of course but don't expect me to go repeating myself until you respond to the points.

Won't expect too much.

Whats up madrover? ,cat got your tongue?

I merely pointed out the pen count was 5-1 and not 5-0 in the second half which is perfectly true. You then go off on one about the on field ref not giving a penalty. So what?

Yes we get it, the penalty count was 5-1

It should have been 2-10 ,but it was 5-1

How good are those Aussies?



All 19 of them

Running to nearly 60 pages now. Surely they've reversed the result by now?

Watch it again Mugwump. The tackled player steps off the mark and PAST Charnley. It was yet another 'let's favour Australia at every opportunity' decision. He wasn't square because he stood his ground; something he was entirely justified in doing. I actually felt sorry for you at one point but, in truth, you're just an idiot. I find it telling that the vast majority of your venom is directed at Wigan players too. Just pointing out the obvious for you again as you seem to have a real difficulty with seeing the obvious.

You're determined for that repeated line to finally get a bite aren't you.

Come on maddy, where are you?

A 5-1 penalty count doesn't convince as well as a 5-0 penalty account does.

5-0 it is then.

Bloody cheats!

Etc.

Dead Set!

The NRL's stats website thinks the penalty count was 2-1 to the aussies in the second half!!!! live.nrlstats.com/matches/nrl/match33664.html It states that the video ref was A Unknown. Funny. I spoke to someone at the NRL who it has nothing to do with tbh and they said Steve Clark should be video reffing games as he does in the NRL.

The NRL's stats website thinks the penalty count was 2-1 to the aussies in the second half!!!! live.nrlstats.com/matches/nrl/match33664.html It states that the video ref was A Unknown. Funny. I spoke to someone at the NRL who it has nothing to do with tbh and they said Steve Clark should be video reffing games as he does in the NRL.

Quote ="Rooster Booster"The NRL's stats website thinks the penalty count was 2-1 to the aussies in the second half!!!! live.nrlstats.com/matches/nrl/match33664.html It states that the video ref was A Unknown. Funny. I spoke to someone at the NRL who it has nothing to do with tbh and they said Steve Clark should be video reffing games as he does in the NRL.'" I don't know who this Phil Hicks bloke is who was apparently a touch judge. Maybe that's why we got an Aussie ref, it was the only one they knew the name of.

Quote ="Rooster Booster"The NRL's stats website thinks the penalty count was 2-1 to the aussies in the second half!!!! live.nrlstats.com/matches/nrl/match33664.html It states that the video ref was A Unknown. Funny. I spoke to someone at the NRL who it has nothing to do with tbh and they said Steve Clark should be video reffing games as he does in the NRL.'" I don't know who this Phil Hicks bloke is who was apparently a touch judge. Maybe that's why we got an Aussie ref, it was the only one they knew the name of.

Quote ="Rooster Booster"The NRL's stats website thinks the penalty count was 2-1 to the aussies in the second half!!!! live.nrlstats.com/matches/nrl/match33664.html '" Is the compiler called Sutton, then?

Quote ="Rooster Booster"The NRL's stats website thinks the penalty count was 2-1 to the aussies in the second half!!!! live.nrlstats.com/matches/nrl/match33664.html '" Is the compiler called Sutton, then?

Players step off the mark just about every tackle these days (which I've complained bitterly about for years). Charnley knows this as well as anyone. His job is to get his lazy backside moving and position himself correctly. He didn't. It was a stupid penalty made worse by the fact that his slack-jawed rictus indicated he didn't particularly care. As for THAT drop ...



Good grief.



I calls it as I sees it. By the way - at which character position in the above string did you slap your forehead, exclaim "D'oh!" and hastily erase [i"I don't see you picking any Saints' players"[/i. My guess was five out from the full stop. But I would't rule out editing after the fact ...

I calls it as I see it too. You're an idiot and continue to prove it. Well done.

Well spotted by the way. Obviously I was unaware no Saints players had been selected until you pointed it out. No, really...