Harsh on Godinet - he put himself all-over the place and was first in the chase on most occasions.

After that though...

I thought Moore, Godinet and Anderson played well.
Ryan didn't have opportunity but put effort in.

Sammut had some flashes.

Kirmond tried but some poor execution today.
Walshaw came looking for the ball went it was obvious he wasn't going to get a pass.

Why did we keep attacking the right side all the time??

I take it Kirmond was playing with an injury? I don't know whether we ran at him on purpose, or he put his hand up to make the tackles, but he did the most work out of all your guys, but was slower & slower getting up after each impact.

He's been injured all season, and most of last too. I admire his attitude but he's going to do serious damage to his body all for a coach and team mates who really are not worth it. Given some players are out due to a sore toe I don't think it's unreasonable for Kirmond to have an extended break.

Obviously many things are not going well to put it mildly, but I do wish people would not 'lash out ' unreasonably.
I injured my big toe gardening and it took over two months to get right.
I could hardly walk for three weeks let alone run.

It's an observation. It's been suggested Kirmond has been having an epidural so he can play. I've no idea whether this is still the case but it highlights the difference in characters between the two. Not that I'm complaining about Lyne being out of the side mind.

Quote ="Wildthing"Disallowed Try for Mathers '" A wrong decision: https://twitter.com/RFLReferees Ah well, que sera sera.

Quote ="Wildthing"Disallowed Try for Mathers '" A wrong decision: https://twitter.com/RFLReferees Ah well, que sera sera.

Quote ="PHe"A wrong decision: https://twitter.com/RFLReferees Ah well, que sera sera.'" Sums it up really, could have made a difference for us and brought the match to a winnable end. I'm also still trying to figure out a lot of the 2nd half decisions. Whenever the ball came out of a tackle when we had possession it was a scrum. If it was when they had possession it was a penalty to them. Seems greater than the law of averages how so many were ruled in Bradford's favour.

Quote ="PHe"A wrong decision: https://twitter.com/RFLReferees Ah well, que sera sera.'" Sums it up really, could have made a difference for us and brought the match to a winnable end. I'm also still trying to figure out a lot of the 2nd half decisions. Whenever the ball came out of a tackle when we had possession it was a scrum. If it was when they had possession it was a penalty to them. Seems greater than the law of averages how so many were ruled in Bradford's favour.

You missed out the knock on at the PTB in the set leading up to your sides first score...

And Richard Moore escaping a red card despite throwing punches at our winger and subsequently receiving a grade B charge. A I don't think it was all one sided, you just weren't good enough on the day.

And the Bradford player throwing punches, who didn't get binned?

Weren't good enough on the day because we had to sell more than half our team to stop us going into Admin, if we had last seasons team we'd be no where near the relegation zone .

Let me rephrase....

"Weren't good enough on the day because we were crap!"

Lets not forget the Bulls have lost at least 4 decent players since the end of last season. Looking at your current team, you have some really good players, that should not be performing as bad as they currently are.

If the ref had binned every player who swung a punch after Moore lost the plot there wouldn't have been many players left.

So what about the player who appeared at the disciplinary panel, who threw a punch?

No, the teams on paper are pretty evenly matched. You just lacked a gameplan and the desire to get the win on that particular day, perhaps understandably because the points were not as crucial for your side.

this has probably been mentioned already, but why did mathers' try get disallowed. Looked perfectly fine to me looking at replay

Refs twitter account said ot should have stood, error of judgement.

Look at my post on page 15 of this thread, viewing the twitter link for the rflrefs and see what they now think - similar to your thoughts and mine.

Managed to bring myself to watch the highlights of the game, Gale is the instigator of the fracas, lashes out, sticks his head in Moores face and also throws the first punch....

[urlhttp://www.superleague.co.uk/sltv/touchline#[/url

On the "bradford back in black" video - 1m 45, gale throws the first punch at 1m51.

Not blaming the refs as I doubt anyone could have seen that but coupled with the Mathers "Try that never was" it just sticks in the craw a bit.

Just seems like at the minute, we could fall in a barrel of tits and still come out sucking our thumb.

Think you must be watching a different video to me, Gale didn't throw anything at Moore to instigate it. You had a try allowed from a knock on so you weren't that hard done by. Just be thankful it was a result changing decision like the knock over the line that cost us 2 points at Widnes.

Course it was a result changing decision the try we was robbed of would have made it 16-12 with wakey on top and Bradford would have started to panic more

no he didn't just pushed out with his arm and then proceeded to use his head no doubt exchanging a few verbals at the same time its no wonder Richie blow his top

Watch Gales right arm at 1:51, digs Moore in the ribs.

I can only assume you mean Elliot Kear? If so it is pretty much pushing and shoving from both parties until Moore begins trying to throw haymakers. The video review panel seem to agree with that too given the grades given out by the disciplinary.

You really are clutching at straws if you feel that decision had a huge bearing on the result. Whilst the 2nd half was a bit closer and nervier affair you never looked particularly dangerous with ball in hand except a few strong carries from Ryan.