cpwigan wrote:Lol well unfortunately long winded rambling will not prevent me from pointing out that you are blinded by club loyalty and thus are biased.
Absolute complete and utter rubbish.
I may as well say you won't admit you are wrong.
Matthew keeps tryping defeatist. Well so far if we accept your views we were somehow robbed v Cats but given Hudds got robbed v us I think the adage is correct. Try replacing defeatist for realist.
How were Hudds robbed? Did the ref give us the means to win the game? I don't recall their coach having a go at the ref whereas ours was not happy with the refs decisions at the end.
Where were these errors before 75 minutes. List them. You all keep making grandiose statements. Back them up with evidence. Any fool can say oh he was rubbish throughout. It is meaningless. Thus far the only conclusive evidence available disproved the theory that Calderwood was obstructed. Supporters were quiet given the referee was supposedly so awful during the first 75 minutes.
Several have been pointed out in this thread by Geoff and others. And I am sure you as well as everyone else who was there spotted them at the time.
Comments by coaches, players consistently refer to Klein doing well and allowing the game to flow. They mention convern about the last five minutes but guess what they all say blaming the referee is clutching at straws and that they need to play better. That's the bottom line we need to play better!!! WE CAN CONTROL that.
Coaches are NOT going to slag the ref off. Well some with no class invariably do but ours doesn't. So I think the only thing your comments above confirm is what Geoff said earlier - we can't control what ref does.
To make it simple to grasp take a hypothetical example of two teams tied at 28 all in the last two minutes. The ref makes a huge blunder and as a result one side is given the field position to score the winning drop goal from the next play.
Saying the team on the losing side should have done better so this didn't matter misses the point that the ref should not have made a huge blunder and that in doing so he
changed the result. It is very simple.
The refs actions affected the scoreboard. Only the players actions should do this is what it boils down to.
If oyu want to quote external sources how about the press who reported the defeat "controversial"?
Pat could have rendered this debate pointless by kicking his kicks.
There would still have been a debate about Klien regardless. There is always a thread about how the ref did and had we still won I am sure Klien would still have been slated for the bas decisions. This is because he is a poor ref and reffed the game true to form.
Our players could rise above playing at 60% of their potential. There are so many things we could have done better and guess what there was nothing any referee could do to prevent us winning if we did so.
This is the pointless "if we scored a 100 points we would have won argument" yet again. Games don't work out like that and at best you are using hindsight to say things could have been different if we did this or that. Well on the day and at the time things happen, they happen qhen they happen in a sequence of unfolding events.
It is not acceptable to have a lead wiped out as a consequence of a refs decision
regardless of what went on before which is the entire point of the whole debate.
So please do reply but I want timings and a list of these mistakes. Otherwise your rhetoric is meaningless.
A ridiculous comment.
Dave