infamous-l
Kennel Participant
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 125
- Reaction score
- 0
i think the winner of the game was decided before kickoff.really dissapointing.wouldve been good to see hazem win his 300th game.
decided by the reffs too rite.. ******s!!i think the winner of the game was decided before kickoff.really dissapointing.wouldve been good to see hazem win his 300th game.
yes i hear you and we need to do something about it. Take out the heart. Had a gut full of this bull****.hi guys, and welcome to the wonderful world of australian sport. For some time now, the bulldogs have encountered an onslaught of the most ridiculous refereeing decisions in the history of the game, and for what reason... Its very simple... Money....
You see the nrl would have you believe that impartiality is a cultural consensus of what occurs on and off the field, but let us think about its relevant income streams, and benefactors and its agendas.
For some time now the nrl has had a very close relationship with the flagship of integrity... The tab, what do you ask does the tab have to do with the outcome of a game, and the decisions of the referee, well just think about it...
When a decision to award a match wining try is left in the hands of a small man in a box, who is scrutinised by his peers, the same peers who have the same bets on the very same team as he, then you start to see a clear indication that intention plays a bit of a role in the objectivity of an official.
Couple the agenda bias of a tab "agent" aka the referee and his other employer "mr. Murdoch" then we have a recipe for disaster. But what the board room jockeys at the nrl don’t know is that we know what’s going on behind the scene, we know that there is a group of lawyers, solicitors, "sponsors" all in bed with each other, moving their "invested" sponsorship dollars with our good friends and the tab in favour of games to which the wish to capitilaise on.
You may think im far fetched, but shirking in not uncommon in most high level board decisions, and it may come to a surprise that they actually call this behavior "strategic venture capitalism"....
Here here, i’m not having a crack at capitalism, i’m having a crack at the overtly corrupt pseudo psychopaths that killed the rugby league in 1996, only to install a puppet regime with a propaganda outlet call the daily telegraph...
In response, i just as every great citizen who doesn’t fund illegitimate regimes such as the corrupt nrl, do not:
• buy the telegraph
• subscribe to foxtel
• buy merchandise other from the leagues club
so the pretenders will have you believe i’m either mad, or will ask to pull this post down, or just as they often would prefer, delegitimize my claim with lack of evidence, and a sense of being a sore loser, or better yet, an irrational extremist who is “brining the game into disrepute”, alas i would say the disrepute will only realize their disillusionment when they realize what they lost…. The spirit of the game.
Soward must pay.The farken lil poof!have another look tomorrow. I think Soward may have beed able to get a clear shot on Patten. He took the gay option.
I guess I should explain myself better. He chose to milk it when IMO he could have easily had a shot at Patten. Watch the footage - I also noticed that you have a S**tload of posts...do you get out much?you are an imbecile, do you even know what the rules of league are? Patten was already at least 2-3 metres in front of that cheating mofo plus Eastwood did not change his line let alone attempt to hold him back, that coward knew he was through so he rubbed his arm on Eastwood's stomach to get the penalty. Either learn the rules or shut the **** up.
DF
he might have been obtructed a little bit . have you seen the video from the other side . reverse angle . even if its not 100% obtruction .if there is doubt . we need a royal commision enquiry into nrl corruption
says it all . what a cheating dirty abo or maybe as they call them these days "professional sportsman"
Taken from article :
http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews/idris-notry-call-mars-a-classic/2009/05/15/1242335885236.html
Your a goose....he was NOT obstructed, he ran into a player...he should have been penalised for trying to tackle eastwood without the ball...he might have been obtructed a little bit . have you seen the video from the other side . reverse angle . even if its not 100% obtruction .if there is doubt . we need a royal commision enquiry into nrl corruption
Clearly you were in the Video Refs box performing filatio!have another look tomorrow. I think Soward may have beed able to get a clear shot on Patten. He took the gay option.