The Shepherd

User avatar
happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 40123
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: The Shepherd

Post by happy tiger » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 6:20 pm

Tiger Watto wrote:
Geo. wrote:Have watched it for the 15th time now....Galloway was in the Raiders in goal line did not even touch a Raiders defended...no one was impeded in attempting to tackle Farah....Farah gained no advantage at all....

The call was incorrect...

The funniest thing is if Ole Henry said TRY ....the monkey's in the box would have said TRY.....
^^ This ^^

There was advantage gained... If it happened on the halfway line on the 3rd tackle, nothing wouldve been done about it.

A howler of a decision regardless of the outcome!

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
It was a no try TW

If Farah had kicked or passed the ball before Keefy reaches the defence it is play on

Classic Shepherd call

The five tackle ruling annoys me as it must take the Raiders 40 seconds to play the ball Surely 1 official noticed it and could of spoken to the on field refs

Not good enough


User avatar
Geo.
Member
Member
Posts: 28965
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Sandy Point NSW..

Post by Geo. » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 6:47 pm

Bull....He was through the line before Farah ran behind the same thing you 30 times a game...see Souff's Exhibit A above....explain that one ...
Ivan's Laws

1. You are either on the Bus or you are off..
2. The Star of the Team is the Team
3. Be the player your teammates want to play with..

TrueTiger
Member
Member
Posts: 5418
Joined: Thu 14 Aug, 2014 11:22 am

Post by TrueTiger » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 6:58 pm

I watched the replay today and I honestly have seen tries awarded that were more blatant or impeded a player...in my opinion,it was clearly a try,but then again I'm not the video ref...
You may see me struggle...but you will never see me quit... :D

User avatar
happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 40123
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 6:59 pm

Geo. wrote:Bull....He was through the line before Farah ran behind the same thing you 30 times a game...see Souff's Exhibit A above....explain that one ...
Its Souths

Thus endeth the lesson

A rule is a rule no matter how inadequate it now is

Same as our coach said

User avatar
mike
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 1611
Joined: Mon 28 Jun, 2010 8:32 pm
Location: Hornsby

Post by mike » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 7:05 pm

underdog wrote:The rule itself isn't my concern.

It's the CONSISTENCY of how it's enforced. That is was pisses me off the most with decisions like that.

Farah did the wrong thing, however this kind of play is overlooked FOREVER AND A DAY and happens easily 15-20 times a game, and is never ever pulled up.

The consistency of the referees has been flat out the worst I've seen it in years. Each of the close games this round have been decided on bad decisions.
I totally agree. This happens multiple times a game and never gets pulled up. It's the old fashioned shepherd rule. Hasn't been enforced for years.

However we still should not have squandered a 22-nil lead.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
Western Suburbs supporter since 1960 | Balmain junior since 1967 | Wests Tigers supporter since 1999


User avatar
Tiger Watto
Member
Member
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon 08 Mar, 2010 7:12 pm
Location: Maroochydore Qld

Post by Tiger Watto » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 7:11 pm

Happy, there is no such thing as a Shepherd in the Rule Book... Actually, a player in possession CAN run behind his own players, as long as no opposition player is obstructed from actually making an attempt of tackle.

Unless FPN is Superman, he was never going to be in a position to tackle Farah!
"Did someone buy you the internet hero play book for Christmas and you've only just started reading it?" - Nelson 21/04/2017

User avatar
happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 40123
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 7:20 pm

Tiger Watto wrote:Happy, there is no such thing as a Shepherd in the Rule Book... Actually, a player in possession CAN run behind his own players, as long as no opposition player is obstructed from actually making an attempt of tackle.

Unless FPN is Superman, he was never going to be in a position to tackle Farah!
Yes its real name in obstruction and it is in the rule book

Why do players drop on the ground when they have done the wrong thing ?? To pray to the Footy Gods or to look for Geo's tickets which blew off yesterday ??

User avatar
foreveratiger
Member
Member
Posts: 11980
Joined: Mon 27 Jun, 2011 8:03 pm

Post by foreveratiger » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 7:21 pm

Regardless we should of never have lost that .
Raiders should be commended for having a fighting spirit and winning that after being down 22-0 midway through the 1st half.
Shows they have character , something i think we are lacking at the moment.
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
Tiger Watto
Member
Member
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon 08 Mar, 2010 7:12 pm
Location: Maroochydore Qld

Post by Tiger Watto » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 7:26 pm

happy tiger wrote:
Tiger Watto wrote:Happy, there is no such thing as a Shepherd in the Rule Book... Actually, a player in possession CAN run behind his own players, as long as no opposition player is obstructed from actually making an attempt of tackle.

Unless FPN is Superman, he was never going to be in a position to tackle Farah!
Yes its real name in obstruction and it is in the rule book

Why do players drop on the ground when they have done the wrong thing ?? To pray to the Footy Gods or to look for Geo's tickets which blew off yesterday ??
Probably because they dont know the rules like you :roll

I think the Shepard was tossed with the Wests Panthers :righton:
"Did someone buy you the internet hero play book for Christmas and you've only just started reading it?" - Nelson 21/04/2017

User avatar
Geo.
Member
Member
Posts: 28965
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Sandy Point NSW..

Post by Geo. » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 7:27 pm

Tiger Watto wrote:Happy, there is no such thing as a Shepherd in the Rule Book... Actually, a player in possession CAN run behind his own players, as long as no opposition player is obstructed from actually making an attempt of tackle.

Unless FPN is Superman, he was never going to be in a position to tackle Farah!
Don't talk sense with him please...it will only confuse him...Oh look Tagatese just ran behind Lewis and was tackled....No Penalty
Ivan's Laws

1. You are either on the Bus or you are off..
2. The Star of the Team is the Team
3. Be the player your teammates want to play with..

User avatar
happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 40123
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 7:32 pm

Geo. wrote:
Tiger Watto wrote:Happy, there is no such thing as a Shepherd in the Rule Book... Actually, a player in possession CAN run behind his own players, as long as no opposition player is obstructed from actually making an attempt of tackle.

Unless FPN is Superman, he was never going to be in a position to tackle Farah!
Don't talk sense with him please...it will only confuse him...Oh look Tagatese just ran behind Lewis and was tackled....No Penalty
AS JT said yesterday , it did affect the outcome , a try was scored

JT doesn't know the rules either We are both dopey then ??

User avatar
Geo.
Member
Member
Posts: 28965
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Sandy Point NSW..

Post by Geo. » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 7:36 pm

He is being polite....10K fines we don't need..

Who was obstructed ?
Ivan's Laws

1. You are either on the Bus or you are off..
2. The Star of the Team is the Team
3. Be the player your teammates want to play with..

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Mon 20 Apr, 2015 10:46 pm

I think it should have been a penalty. Clear shepherd for me, old school run around your own bloke.

But I understand Geo's frustration, the refs have to be consistent, which they are not. Rule the same way every time, same interpretation, and people do not get upset.

It's like the Hodges try in origin, which should have been called up for the same reason, but was not.

Post Reply