Luke Brooks Dive

User avatar
Milky
Member
Member
Posts: 5091
Joined: Fri 29 Mar, 2013 7:08 pm
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 10 times

Luke Brooks Dive

Unread post by Milky » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 12:02 pm

Whether he dived or not, good on him, he is copping crap for winning the game for his team, Sandow took a dive during the game when we were gaining momentum off a Parra error, he tried to get time off but the Reff didn't call it. Good work by Brooks, win a game dirty or not as long as you win.


thesquid
Member
Member
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun 13 Apr, 2014 9:17 am

Unread post by thesquid » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 12:07 pm

I would hate to see the game go like soccer. I cant stand a minute of watching those punces dive. If he dived, he is helping to ruin the game. It looked ball line to me and thats good enough to let dogs lie. IfI see a blatant acting move, then I dont care who it is, ill dog them.

User avatar
Cosimo_Zaretti
Member
Member
Posts: 1274
Joined: Sat 18 Aug, 2012 7:07 pm
Location: Camperdown
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 8 times

Unread post by Cosimo_Zaretti » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 12:08 pm

I'm not sold on Brooks taking a dive, but it doesn't matter. He was collected by a decoy runner and the refs made the call. Just because it's not always called doesn't mean you should have a sook when one goes against you. Parra kept rolling the dice, throwing cutout passes with a lot of bodies in motion coming through the line. When you do that, you risk obstruction calls, you risk silly knock ons and you risk runaway intercept tries. The eels managed to come up with all three.

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 18801
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm
Has liked: 66 times
Been liked: 203 times

Unread post by GNR4LIFE » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 12:11 pm

Who cares, Parra can't complain about it costing them the game either cos they leveled the game up anyway and still gave themselves the chance to pull it out.

krayola
Member
Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat 26 Jun, 2010 10:12 am
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 3 times

Unread post by krayola » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 12:14 pm

Really? A front rower runs at one of the smallest players on the field, who just happens to be moving backwards, catches him with a shoulder/slightly outstretched arm and surprise, surprise, the smaller guy falls over! The only people saying this have clearly not watched Brooks this season - he's tough and not in the Ennis sense.

Point the finger at Gower. Even if Brooks had dived, it was Gower making the contact that allowed him to.


User avatar
Tigerdave
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 10362
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 6:04 am
Location: Lismore
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 22 times

Unread post by Tigerdave » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 12:17 pm

Looked more like Brooks tripped over Gower's leg, in any event, Gower was in the wrong and the correct call was made.

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 18801
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm
Has liked: 66 times
Been liked: 203 times

Unread post by GNR4LIFE » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 12:18 pm

It was one of those decisions that your opinion would be based on which side of the fence you sit. Was 50/50 imo.

User avatar
Juro
Member
Member
Posts: 2587
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 9:15 am
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 4 times

Unread post by Juro » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 12:20 pm

krayola wrote:Really? A front rower runs at one of the smallest players on the field, who just happens to be moving backwards, catches him with a shoulder/slightly outstretched arm and surprise, surprise, the smaller guy falls over! The only people saying this have clearly not watched Brooks this season - he's tough and not in the Ennis sense.

Point the finger at Gower. Even if Brooks had dived, it was Gower making the contact that allowed him to.
Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it. Anyway, the penalty was not for knocking him over, it was for obstruction.
I've been a member since 2012. We last played finals football in 2011. Just saying...

Furious1
Member
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 6:42 pm
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 10 times

Unread post by Furious1 » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 12:26 pm

It looked like a dive to me. I don't really care though, it's not like Hayne has never taken a dive.

Posted using RoarFEED V.4

User avatar
smeghead
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 9882
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 11:56 pm

Unread post by smeghead » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 12:27 pm

Tigerdave wrote:Looked more like Brooks tripped over Gower's leg, in any event, Gower was in the wrong and the correct call was made.
Agree with this. It was the contact with the leg that felled Brooks

That said Hybrid is right it probably depends which side you are on
Image

User avatar
simonthetiger
Member
Member
Posts: 3370
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:12 pm

Unread post by simonthetiger » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 12:35 pm

Looked to me like he tripped him too......def 50/50 call that could have gone either way...i was shocked when they no try-ed it.

Goose
Member
Member
Posts: 4633
Joined: Tue 21 Sep, 2010 2:46 pm
Location: Concord

Unread post by Goose » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 1:52 pm

I thought it was a definite obstruction, that said I also thought the Manly try was a more definite obstruction, and that one was allowed! So maybe they are all 50/50 given the inconsistency in the decisions.

Gary Bakerloo
Member
Member
Posts: 2447
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 7:22 pm
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 5 times

Unread post by Gary Bakerloo » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 1:56 pm

I hope he did take a dive. I still remember Luke Burt staying down in 2009 to get an 8 point try.

tig_prmz
Member
Member
Posts: 7912
Joined: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 10:32 pm
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 20 times

Unread post by tig_prmz » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 2:04 pm

thought that was a dive.. brooks would be my enemy no.1 if i was a parra supporter atm. cant believe they ruled obstruction on that.
My Round 1 Team 2018

1. lolo 2. noffa 3. suli 4. milne 5. fonua
6. reynolds 7. brooks
8. packer 9. ET 10. Twal
11. McQuen 12. Lawrence 13. Eiso
14. Matulino 15. McIllwrick 16. Sue 17. Aloiai
18. Marsters 19. Benji 20. Grant 21. K Naiqama
Next: Liddle, MCK, Felise, MWZ, Thompson, Rochow, Gamble

User avatar
foreveratiger
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 11538
Joined: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 8:03 pm

Unread post by foreveratiger » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 2:29 pm

Don't cry over spilt milk, they had there chance and bombed, that decoy runner changed his line of run just slightly and was watching Brooks while running, the ref's got it right and not being one eyed either.
They should blame Sandow not brooks
It depends who you talk to on this Forum, if you are Optimistic? it's because your delusional and need a reality check. If you are Pessimistic? Your accused of being a negative Nancy and to go and follow another Club.

User avatar
innsaneink
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 25334
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....
Has liked: 273 times
Been liked: 224 times

Unread post by innsaneink » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 2:36 pm

Correct desicion
end of /-

User avatar
2041
Member
Member
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri 14 Jan, 2011 12:32 pm
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 13 times

Unread post by 2041 » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 2:37 pm

If Brooks was capable of weighing up, in the miniscule amount of time available to him, that he was no chance of making a tackle but that there was a runner in the vicinity that he could take a convenient dive off then he's even better than we think. Watching the replay several times I still thought he was a chance of getting involved in that play, in which case he'd have to be some kind of a magician to figure out exactly how it was going to play out and decide that a dive was a better option. Not to mention the fact that we've already seen enough of the kid's defensive heart to know he's not one to back out of a tackle if he thinks he can get to it.

Balmain Boy
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 2695
Joined: Sun 27 Sep, 2009 7:22 pm
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 27 times

Unread post by Balmain Boy » Tue 22 Apr, 2014 2:50 pm

How can it be a dive when a 110kg forward runs into him and he wasn't braced for a collision? If Gower wasn't there, Brooks stays on his feet, defensive line keeps its shape and have a better chance to stop the try. Would we have stopped it? Maybe, maybe not, but we didn't get the chance to try so it's a correct penalty.

Post Reply

Return to “Round 7: Wests Tigers vs Parramatta Eels”