That's right, and what I took Adey to be saying as well.

It was. And, it would seem, Sadler. Shame Gareth chose to ridicule it, and some other opinions too, just because he disagrees with them. Well beneath his usual standards, and very disappointing.

I agree, and its wrong. Except this had nothing to do with people being abusive or shouting obscenities at the match. It was the general consensus of a lot of unconnected, ordinary fans, talking perfectly coherently if somewhat crossly while queuing up for a pee.

And it was also significant that some of those near me, who rarely berate the officials and (usually correctly, as again they did yesterday) identify what mistakes we made to lead up to the incident/s, were very unhappy with a number of the first half decisions (or non-decisions, like not going to the screen).

And, for the benefit of Gareth, I merely reported what I heard, the same "ill-informed bias" as some reading this thread might feel they discern in his own disparaging post.

My opinion:

I actually think Bradford got the rub of the green in most decisions.

Sinfields pass may have been forward, but it made no difference to how Bradford defended that particular play. Not saying it should have been given, but it should have been defended better anyway

Mcguire likely had two tries called off, one a break away forward pass which was laughable, on the other he clearly got the ball down with an outstanding bit of skill

Hall scored a try- where the hell the forward pass was in that one i have no idea, there were two passes, both clearly backwards (not even flat, backwards)

Nero's was a no try, he pushed him, not a lot but he did it. The rules say it was no try, its harsh but thems the rules.

personally i thought bradford were poor, first half both teams were awful, lots of dropped ball, poor defence, and dumb play. In the 2nd half leeds stepped it up a notch Bradford didnt. Thats why Leeds won.

A couple of things i noticed from a bradford point of view,

The Sykes chase down. Yes he was caught by Kirke, and yes that is funny. What Bradford shouldnt be laughing at is there was no Bradford player in support. Mcguire caused problems all game backing up, usually Webb and Burrow are there too. Sykes had time and space but no support. They made it easy for Leeds to defend.

Id worry how this big name pack is actually fronting up. Leeds had one forward interchange (who had been knocked out) for the 2nd half and at times lined up with only Bailey as a fully fledged prop but dominated. A pack like that shouldnt have been dominated as it was

Awful coaching from Macnamara to switch Sheriffe, massive vote of no confidence for a player who only dropped one bomb having been peppered for 25 minutes in the sun. Saying that, i wouldnt take any of the bradford back line. and im not sure any of the other big sides would either.

I think the point some Leeds fans are making is that if we take into account Bradfords injuries then we must also take into account Leeds injuries. Leeds had more players of a similar quality out than Bradford. Therefore Bradfords injuries cannot be used as an excuse for Bradford loss. The fact Leeds coped better with more players out shows Leeds have a better squad than Bradford and thats the reason they won. Knowing that any excuse regarding injuries is simply nonsense

Yes bloody really. Adults discussing a game, not kids making excuses.


Fook me. Who do you reckon you are impressing with your "Mr. Masterful" impersonation?


Have you got the painters in or something? If i say we have enough to beat Team X - why, as an adult with functioning brain, could you possibly read that as meaning "we WILL beat Team X EVERY time if only x,y,z players play"?


Of course they can! It is weird to suggest otherwise. I can, plainly, discuss how the team is weakened by the absence of x, y and z. I don't even have to mention any particular opponent at all. What an odd remark!

. . and now you're just being really silly. Who on earth made any such preposterous claim?


Well, at least that much is true.

Nobody is denying this part - Leeds have a bigger squad with more money being spent on it- obviously they will be better covering for injuries.

Typical form by plenty on here I am afraid. After all I was ridiculed for making the self same point. Just a shame for some of the experts on RAB that other share my opinion.

No wonder we get known as "bitter Bulls".

(incidentally, FAO Adey and FA, the other day I was told that there were people on here who have more integrity than others and therefore their opinions should be more respected than others. Apparently there is a difference between reasoned knowledge and "trolling tery". Now I am sure that neither of you will dismiss G1 as a trolling t so it is a shame that you both seem to contradict yourself once again. Fell at the first again!

)

Does anyone know for a fact the bulls arnt spending full cap?

hood stated it at fans forum pre season I believe.

And mick gledhill was told the amount we're underspending by a innebriated member of bulls board a month or so back - although that may be a figment of his vivid imagination.

Yup. From the mouth of the Chairman at the Fans' forum as well as in print. The amount of the alleged underspend is less certain, but a figure has been quoted on here which allegedly came from Jack Bates, according to the poster.

Interesting reading (more fully) Sadler's observations in LE today.

"The Bulls supporters will no doubt claim they were robbed by the match officials. They failed to spot what looked suspiciously like a forward pass for the Rhinos' first try...

...but the game turned on what happened between the 33rd and 35th minutes....Scott Donald chased the ball just in front of Chris Nero. Donald slowed down slightly as he tried to collect the kick, which bounced over his head..Nero couldn't stop himself from touching Donald in the back as the Leeds player in front of him slowed, but he then collected the ball and touched it down. It looked to me like a perfectly good try, but for some reason Thierry Alibert turned it down. I simply didn't see the logic in him doing that.

Two minutes later...Rikki Sheriffe failed to take the ball cleanly as he was nudged by Ryan Hall. Hall collected the ball and passed it to Senior, who scored the try without the referee checking with the video referee.

The Gods were smiling on Leeds, although just before half-time they were brought back for a forward pass...that didn't look forward to me. Maybe that was a compensatory decision for allowing McGuire's first try to stand."

This from a guy who I have usually seen as being a regular on Leeds' bus.

And the match reporter Keith McGhie said (about Leeds' first try) "...both passes looked marginally forward and incurred the wrath of the majority of a typically vociferous crowd when replays shown on the video screen proved their claims were probably right."

Now none of this detracts from the fact that Bulls blew several chances and made several key mistakes, meaning Leeds justifiably won the game.

But I've posted it by way of balance to what various Leeds fans have said about those decisions. Maybe a bit more objectivity all round would be in order?

You go missing when we play well, and crawl out of your hole dripping with [ischadenfreude[/i when we lose, regardless of the circumstances. Whatever you are, you are no supporter.

You were missing four, so were we.

As Sadler said, your absentees were not the key playmakers. Two of ours were.

You have a bigger, more balanced squad.

Macca rightly observed that having absentees like we did "...hits us harder than most other squads in the competition"

Yes you have a better squad. You have more money to spend on it. You have more cover for injuries. You were not missing your two key playmakers. That, as Sadler implied in his report, is indeed a package of reasons why you won. And is why Bulls fans are perfectly entitled to draw attention to the impact of absentees on the team's performance.

But no mention of the 2 Leeds no trys! The first one from hall where neither of the 2 passes were forward and the mcguire put down which was a stone wall try??? Baffeling were those calls! But as I said no mention of them from journo who Hates Leeds but you think he loves us.

if sadler says it that doesnt make it so! If sadler doesn't think burrow and Webb are main pivots for Leeds then he isn't fit to do his job. I would think you would know better? Anyone who watches Leeds week in week out will tell you Webb and burrow are as important to our attack as mcguire and sinfield.

and that is the stone cold truth.

McGuire dropped it. No downward pressure. How can you all say it was a definate try? You would accept that try scored against you would you?

Wrong actually. He said (of the second) that McGuire was "...harshly judged to have knocked it on". Of that "try", although I felt he seemed to lose it I have seen plenty worse given, and although it was not at all beyond doubt that he had full control I was surprised when benefit of the doubt was not given. I thought it was only us suffered from that...Maybe that was a levelling-up too for that first-half decision?

Sadler did not mention the Hall "try", although McGhie said he was "...denied by a forward pass" without adding any caveat like he did for the one that was - maybe wrongly - called forward just before the break.

And Sadler saying something is so no more makes it so than the likes of you or any other Leeds supporter saying it is so. But he may be a tad less partisan and a tad more experienced to judge? I am in no doubt that, had the situation been reversed, most of you lot would have been the first to quote external "evidence" in support of your claims.

Dont think anyones arguing that webb and burrow arent major pivots for leeds. Point being made is that leeds have 4 main playmakers/pivots sinfield,burrow,mcguire and webb. Bulls only really have 2, orford and kearney, both of whom were missing yesterday. Sykes creates very little and is really only a support player.

Leeds had 2/4 pivots playing bradford had 0/2. Thats the point the OP was trying to get across.

Whilst leeds and bradford both had 4 players out, leeds have much better squad depth to cope with the missing players than bulls at the moment. once we get past our starting 17 and 2 or 3 squad players we're into untested youth territory. Hopefully as the season progresses we'll be able to blood a few of the youth players and have more options.

It's a try mate cos it touches the ground and comes off the turf and mcguire still has the ball in his hand.

so it's brushed the turf comes of the turf still in his hand then touches it down again and then goes backwards to jjb who touches it down for the 3rd time.

that is a far better offering and a lot more sensible than what was first offered up.

Any more than if you, or any other Leeds fan, says it that does not make it so either.

Sadler at least could claim to be a neutral observer, which is more than you can. And therefore why most other observers would give his opinion greater weight.

No doubt you will take that up with Sadler then, since it was him and his reporter whose words I was quoting? I look forward to reading your letter next week telling him how not-sensible his observations were.

steve saint ganson can claim to be a neutral and he has the frickin whistle!

Sadler is notorious for baggin Leeds.

Funnily enough, most old hands on here will almost certainly tell you he has been notorious for putting the boot into Bradford. Indeed, I still have a file of clippings somewhere from the old BISA days of a few years ago when he could be seen to be doing that. And indeed, my first real contact with any of the Bulls hierarchy was on 2/1/01, after I posted an admonishing piece called "a new year's plea" - aimed at several folk, including Caisley and yes, Sadler after he had had a real go at us.

So that means he probably IS impartial...