Try reading the post above the one you've replied to.

Cas have been on the receiving end of a number of calls this season where the ball has been called as having gone back, despite the opposition player facing their opponents posts, and despite the ball not being ripped out. If the ball is ripped out when facing the opponents posts, it will only go backwards if you think about it. Either way, at least we've finally seen some consistency on this particular interpretation and got the call in our favour.

That expensive state education you have had seems to have let you down in the reading department love, it was you that said you had 4 tries disallowed, I merely pointed out that the technology proved you wrong or do you want to split hairs on that one as well, and that same technology also proved that Wakefield were hard done by on 2 occasions which resulted in 2 tries for you, and was simply a response to you and your post trying to make your win that much bigger when in fact is wasn't, all I am guilty of is offering an alternative to your version of events, and IF YOU READ MY RESPONSE I conceded that Cas were the better team on the day and deserved their win, if I might just make a suggestion here why don't you read what is written before jumping in with both feet half cocked with your hair brained thoughts' hth.

I'm quite sure you have been on the receiving end of some bad decisions' all season as we have and I've no doubt every other club has, I have already pointed out to you that there is no such thing as perfect officials' and I'd bet there has never been a game played where they got it right every time, fwiw I do not have a problem with any decision the ref made on Saturday, he called things how he saw it end of, I simply offered you an alternative opinion.

So you said before that you can't see the point of my argument, whilst having a moan about a knock-on that wasn't given. You now say you don't have any problem with any decision made in the game. Why contradict yourself purely for the sake of offering 'an alternative opinion?' Is your backside not hurting yet from sitting on that fence?

you do not have an argument or even a valid point to make, just an assumption that on the basis the official did not see him rife the ball out it's not a knock on. As well you know I was not moaning about it either, just offering fully an alternative outlook on the game but don't let that stop you from a bit of selective misquoting as with the reference to my thoughts' on the referee I doubt you would be happy with some of the decisions that went against us had the situation been reversed, but the point I was trying to get across to you unsuccessful as it was that these things happen in the game and the best thing to do is accept them and move on which you clearly have not, I do hope I have put my point across to you without contradicting myself too much, but I'm sure there will be some thing in there for you to turn into another pointless post.

Keep going Bonzo.

You will wear him down to the point where he tells you (again ) how he got his name.

And as I have repeatedly said - if you READ too - 3/4 - I could not remember. Usually, I could not remember indicates that I was taking a stab in the dark not stating the correct figure. Technology did not prove me wrong as I said the Owen decision was incorrect and nor have I argued that our tries should have been given. You're arguing about things that haven't even been disputed or raised?!

As for making the win that much bigger - what the hell? I have never said it should have been; I said it COULD have been much bigger. QED.

Keep it up with Bonzo, Fully

He'll be back shortly. The Van will be parked up for the night.

At least he doesn't keep reminding everybody constantly how he got his name.

I won't make any further comment with regards to the two posts above, It was my intention to colour code them so that you can see for yourself your contradicting posts but with the higher education you have received I'm sure you will work out just what parts are contradictory, btw as you get older and a bit wiser you will be able to tell the difference between arguing and debating the finer issues of your contradicting posts hth.

Are you stupid?

They are arguing the same point. i.e. the Owen decision went in our favour and one of the tries we scored (that was given) was perhaps from a forward pass.

We did have 3/4 tries disallowed for various reasons - where did I say they were incorrect and should have been given in those posts?

Nothing is contradictory in those at all. Instead of bleating on about an 'education' perhaps you should go back and read the whole thread before commenting?

Give me strength.

Its plain to see the education system failed you, don't you ever stop to think what you might have achieved if you had taken more notice of your teachers when you were there

Or clearly you can't read.

Was the Richard Owen decision incorrect? Yes - both posts state that

One of the tries we scored (that was given) was possibly a forward pass - nothing to do with what you're arguing with.

We had 3/4 tries disallowed; did I say that they should have been given? No, both posts state that again.

And if you read the last sentence of the second quote, I was actually referring to the post stating you were the better side and I actually made reference to the fact those tries got disallowed to indicate that we were probably the better side - which you have agreed with.

So - highlight me the contradictions in that because as far as I can see, there are none. In fact, the comments all agree.

But you keep arguing - you're only making yourself look silly. Talking of contradictions, what about that massive, glaring one in your change of tack with Bonzo's posts.