Every week, a new interpretation

ImageImageImage
User avatar
Frank the tank
Member
Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun 13 Nov, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Sydney boy living in NZ

Re: Every week, a new interpretation

Post by Frank the tank » Sun 15 Jul, 2012 10:28 am

I don't care if it was called try or no try, as long as the rule is CONSISTANT and the same for every team week in week out and the same rule is applied the same way by all the refs.
I'm not a complete idiot.............there are some pieces missing!


User avatar
Anthism
Member
Member
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri 06 Apr, 2012 10:06 pm

Post by Anthism » Sun 15 Jul, 2012 11:32 am

Robbie did the same thing in origin why are you singling out Moltzen? Clearly must hate him no matter what. I thought He had a better case than Robbie too.


Posted using RoarFEED 2012

Goose
Member
Member
Posts: 4619
Joined: Tue 21 Sep, 2010 2:46 pm
Location: Concord

Post by Goose » Sun 15 Jul, 2012 7:51 pm

Anthism wrote:Robbie did the same thing in origin why are you singling out Moltzen? Clearly must hate him no matter what. I thought He had a better case than Robbie too.


Posted using RoarFEED 2012
was about to the same thing, he was belted going backwards, he had no shot at it after that

User avatar
Centaur
Member
Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 2:35 pm

Post by Centaur » Sun 15 Jul, 2012 8:53 pm

Moltzen was obviously inhibited from making a try saving attempt - clear as day.

Sure he showed what a pea heart he is by giving up and sooking to the ref.

However no where in the rules does it say he has to continue to make tackle after being obstructed. He was clearly obstructed, penalty every day of the week - no matter what part of the field it occurs.


Posted using RoarFEED 2012

happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 40842
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Sun 15 Jul, 2012 9:11 pm

Centaur wrote:Moltzen was obviously inhibited from making a try saving attempt - clear as day.

Sure he showed what a pea heart he is by giving up and sooking to the ref.

However no where in the rules does it say he has to continue to make tackle after being obstructed. He was clearly obstructed, penalty every day of the week - no matter what part of the field it occurs.


Posted using RoarFEED 2012
I agree to a degree Centaur he doesn't have to continue making the tackle , but one of the first things you taught playing this game is to play by the whistle If you don't hear it keep going

And this annoys me about the Tigers as a whole sometimes

We seem to ignore the simple things we were taught as kids

Play the whistle

Never turn your back on the play and \ or the opposition

Move up in a straight line

Kick chase in a straight single line

Run straight and hard


User avatar
Juro
Member
Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 9:15 am

Post by Juro » Mon 16 Jul, 2012 8:56 am

Centaur wrote:Moltzen was obviously inhibited from making a try saving attempt - clear as day.

Sure he showed what a pea heart he is by giving up and sooking to the ref.

However no where in the rules does it say he has to continue to make tackle after being obstructed. He was clearly obstructed, penalty every day of the week - no matter what part of the field it occurs.


Posted using RoarFEED 2012
Yeah, that's how I saw it.
I've been a member since 2012. We last played finals football in 2011. Just saying...

User avatar
Centaur
Member
Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 2:35 pm

Post by Centaur » Mon 16 Jul, 2012 11:02 am

happy tiger wrote:
Centaur wrote:Moltzen was obviously inhibited from making a try saving attempt - clear as day.

Sure he showed what a pea heart he is by giving up and sooking to the ref.

However no where in the rules does it say he has to continue to make tackle after being obstructed. He was clearly obstructed, penalty every day of the week - no matter what part of the field it occurs.


Posted using RoarFEED 2012
I agree to a degree Centaur he doesn't have to continue making the tackle , but one of the first things you taught playing this game is to play by the whistle If you don't hear it keep going

And this annoys me about the Tigers as a whole sometimes

We seem to ignore the simple things we were taught as kids

Play the whistle

Never turn your back on the play and \ or the opposition

Move up in a straight line

Kick chase in a straight single line

Run straight and hard
No doubt - he should have played to the whistle.

The point I am trying to make is that whether he played to the whistle or not should not alter the application of the rules. Then again it does muddy the water to a certain degree - because had he continued to try stop the try, it would have perhaps indicated that had he not been obstructed, he would of had a better chance.

User avatar
RatedRKO
Member
Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 10:57 pm

Post by RatedRKO » Tue 17 Jul, 2012 10:01 am

From Bill Harrigan on NRL.com:
Wests Tigers v Panthers

Did you agree with the decision to award a try to the Panthers in the second half, was Wests Tigers fullback Tim Moltzen obstructed?

Tim Moltzen was obstructed, the decision should have been; no-try and a penalty to the Wests Tigers.
I really hope our season isn't decided by something like this.

User avatar
cktiger
Member
Member
Posts: 3499
Joined: Fri 12 Nov, 2010 10:37 am

Post by cktiger » Tue 17 Jul, 2012 11:16 am

Everybody except the video ref knew it

User avatar
MacDougall
Member
Member
Posts: 7967
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 4:03 am
Location: Brisbane, QLD

Post by MacDougall » Tue 17 Jul, 2012 5:50 pm

RatedRKO wrote:From Bill Harrigan on NRL.com:
Wests Tigers v Panthers

Did you agree with the decision to award a try to the Panthers in the second half, was Wests Tigers fullback Tim Moltzen obstructed?

Tim Moltzen was obstructed, the decision should have been; no-try and a penalty to the Wests Tigers.
I really hope our season isn't decided by something like this.
I'm just glad we won. If we lost because of that I would have killed someone.

User avatar
weststigers4life
Member
Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri 17 Jun, 2011 1:34 pm

Post by weststigers4life » Wed 18 Jul, 2012 7:08 pm

RatedRKO wrote:From Bill Harrigan on NRL.com:
Wests Tigers v Panthers

Did you agree with the decision to award a try to the Panthers in the second half, was Wests Tigers fullback Tim Moltzen obstructed?

Tim Moltzen was obstructed, the decision should have been; no-try and a penalty to the Wests Tigers.
I really hope our season isn't decided by something like this.
it's good that they can admit when they made a wrong call, Was there any mention if the video ref was stood down for this weekend?


Posted using RoarFEED 2012

Post Reply