Page 1 of 1

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 9:37 pm
by happy tiger
I'd prefer Mrs Badger as well

At least we would have something to look at while she stuffed up as well

Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 9:45 pm
by tig_prmz
Seems like I'm the only one who thought that wasn't a penalty. I remember looking at it in normal speed and thought Lawrence ducked his head too early to go to ground

A little off topic but I hate how high tackles are usually a one way street- there have been so many cases where players put their own head in a dangerous position (not always to earn a penalty). I think afl has a rule against that where if you put your own head in a dangerous position, it's a penalty against you.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 9:56 pm
by Black'n'White
jesus, its not netball its a physical game, its not difficult to get even. Dominate or be dominated. However it happens on the day, you shouldnt just lube up and grab your ankles, you make them regret the decision to even start with one of yours, and you tell them as you are doing it.

Flip and pretty... Gidley was a grub all game, by letting him go unscathed for slamming Moses earlier all but encouraged him to continue on.

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 9:57 pm
by happy tiger
Lawrence was falling into the tackle

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 10:03 pm
by PYMBLEPETE
In this instance its the video refs rather than Badger that are at fault aren't they? As it was explained during the telecast, only when its a reportable offence can the video referees advise the match officials to award a penalty after reviewing video of the incident. Of course in the mickey mouse way that the NRL does these things, the video refs have probably been left under-prepared for this change in process and not surprisingly no penalty was advised.

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 10:06 pm
by Tiger In The Gong
PYMBLEPETE wrote:In this instance its the video refs rather than Badger that are at fault aren't they? As it was explained during the telecast, only when its a reportable offence can the video referees advise the match officials to award a penalty after reviewing video of the incident. Of course in the mickey mouse way that the NRL does these things, the video refs have probably been left under-prepared for this change in process and not surprisingly no penalty was advised.

Its just another rule where there can be enough deniability to allow the video ref to pick and choose who he would like to penalise.

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 10:07 pm
by Newtown
Tigerheart_returns wrote:I hate it when the joke is on us! Badger should be dropped, at minimum!
Far to late for justice deserved by Wests Tigers. This is not the first time this year Badger has turned the game against Wests Tigers. Imagine the furore had Toovey been our coach last Sunday.

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 10:23 pm
by Winnipeg
happy tiger wrote:Lawrence was falling into the tackle
The point is that 999 million times out of a billion, if the replay shows a player's been hit in the head, whether on purpose or not, the penalty is given.

You even see refs say 'sorry mate but the contact was high' when they can tell it was unintentional - but the penalty is still given.

I swear we are a special case

Remember the time a tiger got penalised for pushing the marker over? I haven't seen that penalised since

Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 10:31 pm
by guyofthetiger
Winnipeg wrote:
happy tiger wrote:Lawrence was falling into the tackle
The point is that 999 million times out of a billion, if the replay shows a player's been hit in the head, whether on purpose or not, the penalty is given.

You even see refs say 'sorry mate but the contact was high' when they can tell it was unintentional - but the penalty is still given.

I swear we are a special case

Remember the time a tiger got penalised for pushing the marker over? I haven't seen that penalised since

On that note, when Leilua fell over as marker, was he actually pushed by one of our players?

Didn't seem like Nofo was anywhere near him.

Looked like he just fell over.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 10:46 pm
by turnstyle
i was pretty annoyed at gidley in that game too. the back slam he did on moses was unnecessary and i thought warranted at least something.
i dont really blame him for the lawrence hit though; he was just going in for a hard tackle and lawrences head was on the way down. not much he couldve done imo, just something that happens.

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 10:50 pm
by happy tiger
guyofthetiger wrote:
Winnipeg wrote:
happy tiger wrote:Lawrence was falling into the tackle
The point is that 999 million times out of a billion, if the replay shows a player's been hit in the head, whether on purpose or not, the penalty is given.

You even see refs say 'sorry mate but the contact was high' when they can tell it was unintentional - but the penalty is still given.

I swear we are a special case

Remember the time a tiger got penalised for pushing the marker over? I haven't seen that penalised since

On that note, when Leilua fell over as marker, was he actually pushed by one of our players?

Didn't seem like Nofo was anywhere near him.

Looked like he just fell over.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
I'm talking about the charge not the possible penalty or even the possible return of the ball

Seeing the ball spill happened after the contact to the head I can't understand at the least why the ball wasn't returned to the player who would replace Rowdy

We see it when players get serious leg or neck injuries when a player puts the ball down beside him when they are injured

Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 11:15 pm
by guyofthetiger
happy tiger wrote:
guyofthetiger wrote:
Winnipeg wrote:
"happy tiger" wrote:Lawrence was falling into the tackle
The point is that 999 million times out of a billion, if the replay shows a player's been hit in the head, whether on purpose or not, the penalty is given.

You even see refs say 'sorry mate but the contact was high' when they can tell it was unintentional - but the penalty is still given.

I swear we are a special case

Remember the time a tiger got penalised for pushing the marker over? I haven't seen that penalised since

On that note, when Leilua fell over as marker, was he actually pushed by one of our players?

Didn't seem like Nofo was anywhere near him.

Looked like he just fell over.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
I'm talking about the charge not the possible penalty or even the possible return of the ball

Seeing the ball spill happened after the contact to the head I can't understand at the least why the ball wasn't returned to the player who would replace Rowdy

We see it when players get serious leg or neck injuries when a player puts the ball down beside him when they are injured


Sorry, I went on a tangent to the separate incident when we were penalised for pushing the marker over, Leilua.

Seemed like he just lost his balance.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 11:16 pm
by turnstyle
happy tiger wrote:
I'm talking about the charge not the possible penalty or even the possible return of the ball

Seeing the ball spill happened after the contact to the head I can't understand at the least why the ball wasn't returned to the player who would replace Rowdy

We see it when players get serious leg or neck injuries when a player puts the ball down beside him when they are injured
i think thats exactly right. i was surprised that given lawrence only dropped the ball following the head shot that they didnt retain possession. as you say, it happens all the time.

Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 11:33 pm
by grrrrrrrrrr
The video ref has been told to go easy on jumping in to avoid players taking a dive however blind freddy could see he was hit with a illegal swinging arm

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Mon 18 May, 2015 11:41 pm
by Geo.
turnstyle wrote:
happy tiger wrote:
I'm talking about the charge not the possible penalty or even the possible return of the ball

Seeing the ball spill happened after the contact to the head I can't understand at the least why the ball wasn't returned to the player who would replace Rowdy

We see it when players get serious leg or neck injuries when a player puts the ball down beside him when they are injured
i think thats exactly right. i was surprised that given lawrence only dropped the ball following the head shot that they didnt retain possession. as you say, it happens all the time.
The Tackle was not complete...simple

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Tue 19 May, 2015 5:07 am
by formerguest
The second joke decision of the game, following on from the overturn despite the second man in striking at the ball and knocking it forward for the opening try. But wait there's more, next up tight head props are now allowed to strike for the ball in scrums.

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Tue 19 May, 2015 7:11 am
by happy tiger
Geo. wrote:
turnstyle wrote:
happy tiger wrote:
I'm talking about the charge not the possible penalty or even the possible return of the ball

Seeing the ball spill happened after the contact to the head I can't understand at the least why the ball wasn't returned to the player who would replace Rowdy

We see it when players get serious leg or neck injuries when a player puts the ball down beside him when they are injured
i think thats exactly right. i was surprised that given lawrence only dropped the ball following the head shot that they didnt retain possession. as you say, it happens all the time.
The Tackle was not complete...simple
Well seeing it has been classed as an illegal tackle the tackle was completed the moment Gidley made contact with his head

Re: Gidley Charged..

Posted: Tue 19 May, 2015 7:41 am
by Geo.
happy tiger wrote:
Geo. wrote:
turnstyle wrote:
happy tiger wrote:
I'm talking about the charge not the possible penalty or even the possible return of the ball

Seeing the ball spill happened after the contact to the head I can't understand at the least why the ball wasn't returned to the player who would replace Rowdy

We see it when players get serious leg or neck injuries when a player puts the ball down beside him when they are injured
i think thats exactly right. i was surprised that given lawrence only dropped the ball following the head shot that they didnt retain possession. as you say, it happens all the time.
The Tackle was not complete...simple
Well seeing it has been classed as an illegal tackle the tackle was completed the moment Gidley made contact with his head
Yeah lets go back and replay the game from that point... :roll: