Shot on Lote

ImageImageImage
Saturday 25 September 2010 7:30PM
ANZ Stadium
Television Coverage: Ch. 9 Live
User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 29733
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Re: Shot on Lote

Post by innsaneink » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 10:24 am

LARDS wrote:I've said this before on this forum a week or so ago.
I don't believe that they can be that incompetent. I think there's more to it.
Whether its intentional or sub-consious they definantly favour one side over the other.
This wasn't our turn.
It goes against most rational adult arguments, but one cannot help the thought creeping in just a little eh?


John

Post by John » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 11:15 am

Guys , this is my first post. I registered to respond to this post . Specifically about refs decisions. I contacted the NRL after the disgrace of the scrum at the end of the Roosters loss. The reply from the NRL was " to blame the officials for the final result does not fairly reflect how the game panned out . " How can this be . If the rules were adhered to , the Tigers get a penalty and win the game. Robert Finch said the scrum was " consistent with pretty much all scrums in the game " Again, I watch most games every week and I would say the exact opposite to this and say that 99.9% of the time it would have been a penalty or the very least another scrum. The NRL also said that the Tigers player had ample time to fall on the ball. So its alright to get it wrong if the player has time to fall on the ball. I personally felt more anger at being robbed in the Roosters game . Had we won that I think we would be playing St George next week.

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6175
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 11:43 am

I actually didn't have that much of a problem with the tackle itself. Smith is a grub and he clearly doesn't attempt to withdraw his knees, but at the same time Tuqiri is a foot off the ground and Smith is coming it at full pace. I don't exactly know what the bloke is supposed to do, you can't help but raise your knees when you are running. It's not as clear cut as a swinging arm.

In these situations I always ask myself how I would feel if the sides were reversed - whether I'd be happy if St George were awarded a penalty if a Tigers player did the same. The answer is "no". So I couldn't fairly claim the same thing off the other side.

Frankly we got off on similar incidents in previous weeks. Dwyer could very easily have been penalised for his his on JWH (not that I believe he should have been, but I have seen softer head contact been penalised). Geezer and Dwyer also got light citings for their other sloppy efforts in the finals.

My biggest problem is the inconsistency of such decisions. It shouldn't matter whether it is regular season or finals; 70th minute or 10th. But it clearly does. Refs statisically put their whistles away in second halves of finals. They are afraid to call penalties when matches are tight.

So Bryce Gibbs' knees to the ar$e of Burt last year was apparently worth 3 weeks, but Smith's was worth 75 points on early guilty. THAT is the inconsistency that frustrates fans so "consistently".
Last edited by jirskyr on Mon 27 Sep, 2010 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
851
Member
Member
Posts: 6495
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:38 pm

Post by 851 » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 1:14 pm

I will say this,If Gibbs does this to Morris,it is a penalty,end of story. :evil:
Go hard or go home

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 29733
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 3:53 pm

jirskyr wrote:I actually didn't have that much of a problem with the tackle itself. Smith is a grub and he clearly doesn't attempt to withdraw his knees, but at the same time Tuqiri is a foot off the ground and Smith is coming it at full pace. I don't exactly know what the bloke is supposed to do, you can't help but raise your knees when you are running. It's not as clear cut as a swinging arm.

In these situations I always ask myself how I would feel if the sides were reversed - whether I'd be happy if St George were awarded a penalty if a Tigers player did the same. The answer is "no". So I couldn't fairly claim the same thing off the other side.

Frankly we got off on similar incidents in previous weeks. Dwyer could very easily have been penalised for his his on JWH (not that I believe he should have been, but I have seen softer head contact been penalised). Geezer and Dwyer also got light sightings for their other sloppy efforts in the finals.

My biggest problem is the inconsistency of such decisions. It shouldn't matter whether it is regular season or finals; 70th minute or 10th. But it clearly does. Refs statisically put their whistles away in second halves of finals. They are afraid to call penalties when matches are tight.

So Bryce Gibbs' knees to the ar$e of Burt last year was apparently worth 3 weeks, but Smith's was worth 75 points on early guilty. THAT is the inconsistency that frustrates fans so "consistently".
Yeah good post


User avatar
prattenpark
Member
Member
Posts: 933
Joined: Tue 02 Mar, 2010 4:02 pm

Post by prattenpark » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 3:58 pm

I'm sure the match review committee only made their decision to rile the Tigers up even more. It's a bit hard to defend the ludicrous outcome of no penalty on the night but a charge laid afterwards. If they are trying to argue that the refs made the correct decision on the night, then why bother charging him afterwards. I'm sure the MRC is sitting their somewhere having a great chuckle at the whole thing as we mouth off and the rugby league world tags us the whingers.

Even if we got a penalty, there is no guarentee we would have kicked the goal, and no guarantee if we did saints wouldn't have scored sometime after. what's done is done.

2010 is over and done with. Forget it. Let's look to next year and praise their efforts this year.

magpiecol
Member
Member
Posts: 3252
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:02 pm

Post by magpiecol » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 4:08 pm

innsaneink wrote:
jirskyr wrote:I actually didn't have that much of a problem with the tackle itself. Smith is a grub and he clearly doesn't attempt to withdraw his knees, but at the same time Tuqiri is a foot off the ground and Smith is coming it at full pace. I don't exactly know what the bloke is supposed to do, you can't help but raise your knees when you are running. It's not as clear cut as a swinging arm.

In these situations I always ask myself how I would feel if the sides were reversed - whether I'd be happy if St George were awarded a penalty if a Tigers player did the same. The answer is "no". So I couldn't fairly claim the same thing off the other side.

Frankly we got off on similar incidents in previous weeks. Dwyer could very easily have been penalised for his his on JWH (not that I believe he should have been, but I have seen softer head contact been penalised). Geezer and Dwyer also got light sightings for their other sloppy efforts in the finals.

My biggest problem is the inconsistency of such decisions. It shouldn't matter whether it is regular season or finals; 70th minute or 10th. But it clearly does. Refs statisically put their whistles away in second halves of finals. They are afraid to call penalties when matches are tight.

So Bryce Gibbs' knees to the ar$e of Burt last year was apparently worth 3 weeks, but Smith's was worth 75 points on early guilty. THAT is the inconsistency that frustrates fans so "consistently".
Yeah good post
"Good post". You are kidding, both of you. It should have been a penalty (he was sited by the MRC). Knees in the back, are illegal. Does not matter if you are two feet off the ground, standing up, or laying down. PENALTY.

The Dwyer has been voted the best hit for 2010. How could he have been charged with a high tackle?

Wise up. We were dudded not only in the St. George game but in the Easts game as well. There should not have been scrum in the first place. The easts player clearly lost the ball in the tackle. Wests got it back. Play on, no scrum. Illegal scrum by easts, no penalty.

No penalty for knees in the back, no penalty for a forearm to Farah's head by the St. George hooker and no penalty for the non play the ball by the St. George fullback.

There are two teams in the GF next week that should not be there. (one of them certainly)

User avatar
Archangel
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri 07 Aug, 2009 11:30 am

Post by Archangel » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 7:23 pm

This is what Mr Hayne had to say on his Twitter message. It is obvious he clearly doesn't like our team.

"Tough game last night but pleased with my performance. Hoping for a 9.8 grading from Finchey. Lote lucky not to get pinged for faking"

Its funny how he big notes himself.

User avatar
alien
Member
Member
Posts: 8720
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 8:49 pm

Post by alien » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 8:58 pm

Archangel wrote:This is what Mr Hayne had to say on his Twitter message. It is obvious he clearly doesn't like our team.

"Tough game last night but pleased with my performance. Hoping for a 9.8 grading from Finchey. Lote lucky not to get pinged for faking"

Its funny how he big notes himself.
it might be a fake account

norm
Member
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu 16 Jul, 2009 10:55 am
Location: Mount Larcom. Central Queensland.

Post by norm » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 9:06 pm

The difference was that Smith was playing for Saint George, who were meant to win, Gibs was playing for us, who are never meant to win.

User avatar
Archangel
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri 07 Aug, 2009 11:30 am

Post by Archangel » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 9:14 pm

alien wrote:
Archangel wrote:This is what Mr Hayne had to say on his Twitter message. It is obvious he clearly doesn't like our team.

"Tough game last night but pleased with my performance. Hoping for a 9.8 grading from Finchey. Lote lucky not to get pinged for faking"

Its funny how he big notes himself.
it might be a fake account
You might be right alien.

norm
Member
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu 16 Jul, 2009 10:55 am
Location: Mount Larcom. Central Queensland.

Post by norm » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 9:26 pm

If he is unable to make a decision should he be officiating at all, Mr Finch?
Muffstar wrote:
Tigerdave wrote://"I think that's really unfair on referees where they're in a position to make decisions quickly," McCallum told AAP on Sunday.//

awww diddums.........it wasn't exactly a quick decision..... they were standing around for some time
what the..... you are dead set kidding McCallum, they replayed it 10 times, waited minutes for Lote to get up and yet that is making a decision quickly ? If the Spray Tan Kid needs more time than that to make a decision then heaven help us.

User avatar
JRD
Member
Member
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Adelaide

Post by JRD » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 9:31 pm

851 wrote:I will say this,If Gibbs does this to Morris,it is a penalty,end of story. :evil:
And Gibbs would have been sent off

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6175
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Mon 27 Sep, 2010 11:29 pm

magpiecol wrote:
innsaneink wrote:
jirskyr wrote:I actually didn't have that much of a problem with the tackle itself. Smith is a grub and he clearly doesn't attempt to withdraw his knees, but at the same time Tuqiri is a foot off the ground and Smith is coming it at full pace. I don't exactly know what the bloke is supposed to do, you can't help but raise your knees when you are running. It's not as clear cut as a swinging arm.

In these situations I always ask myself how I would feel if the sides were reversed - whether I'd be happy if St George were awarded a penalty if a Tigers player did the same. The answer is "no". So I couldn't fairly claim the same thing off the other side.

Frankly we got off on similar incidents in previous weeks. Dwyer could very easily have been penalised for his his on JWH (not that I believe he should have been, but I have seen softer head contact been penalised). Geezer and Dwyer also got light citings for their other sloppy efforts in the finals.

My biggest problem is the inconsistency of such decisions. It shouldn't matter whether it is regular season or finals; 70th minute or 10th. But it clearly does. Refs statisically put their whistles away in second halves of finals. They are afraid to call penalties when matches are tight.

So Bryce Gibbs' knees to the ar$e of Burt last year was apparently worth 3 weeks, but Smith's was worth 75 points on early guilty. THAT is the inconsistency that frustrates fans so "consistently".
Yeah good post
"Good post". You are kidding, both of you. It should have been a penalty (he was sited by the MRC). Knees in the back, are illegal. Does not matter if you are two feet off the ground, standing up, or laying down. PENALTY.

The Dwyer has been voted the best hit for 2010. How could he have been charged with a high tackle?

Wise up. We were dudded not only in the St. George game but in the Easts game as well. There should not have been scrum in the first place. The easts player clearly lost the ball in the tackle. Wests got it back. Play on, no scrum. Illegal scrum by easts, no penalty.

No penalty for knees in the back, no penalty for a forearm to Farah's head by the St. George hooker and no penalty for the non play the ball by the St. George fullback.

There are two teams in the GF next week that should not be there. (one of them certainly)
Dwyer's hit was the best this season... just that similar efforts have been consistently penalised. I think they got it 100% correct not to cite him, but the point is that it is never consistently applied. There are some p!ss weak tackles that get penalised when the season is not on the line.

I also totally agree that the scrum vs Roosters was diabolical. Should have been a penalty 100%. But at the same time Heighno should have dived on the ball and he did not. It is the tiny moments that decided these games and unfortunately we made small mistakes that were hugely penalised.

Yes Boyd dropped the play the ball, but Benji also kicked out on the full. Not all errors in the game belonged to referees.

User avatar
Paris Cobbs
Member
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:39 pm
Location: Paris, France.

Post by Paris Cobbs » Tue 28 Sep, 2010 3:29 am

John wrote:Guys , this is my first post. I registered to respond to this post . Specifically about refs decisions. I contacted the NRL after the disgrace of the scrum at the end of the Roosters loss. The reply from the NRL was " to blame the officials for the final result does not fairly reflect how the game panned out . " How can this be . If the rules were adhered to , the Tigers get a penalty and win the game. Robert Finch said the scrum was " consistent with pretty much all scrums in the game " Again, I watch most games every week and I would say the exact opposite to this and say that 99.9% of the time it would have been a penalty or the very least another scrum. The NRL also said that the Tigers player had ample time to fall on the ball. So its alright to get it wrong if the player has time to fall on the ball. I personally felt more anger at being robbed in the Roosters game . Had we won that I think we would be playing St George next week.
Welcome aboard John, I agree with your post. The Roosters should have disappeared in round 1 of the finals, we had the week off and played the Titans, while StG played the Warriors most likely. Wests v StG in the Grand Final. I don't remember ever being more upset about a "loss" than that Roosters debacle.
Cheering for the mighty Wests Tigers, all the way from France.

User avatar
Tigerdave
Member
Member
Posts: 11073
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 6:04 am
Location: Lismore

Post by Tigerdave » Tue 28 Sep, 2010 10:17 am

Paris Cobbs wrote:
John wrote:Guys , this is my first post. I registered to respond to this post . Specifically about refs decisions. I contacted the NRL after the disgrace of the scrum at the end of the Roosters loss. The reply from the NRL was " to blame the officials for the final result does not fairly reflect how the game panned out . " How can this be . If the rules were adhered to , the Tigers get a penalty and win the game. Robert Finch said the scrum was " consistent with pretty much all scrums in the game " Again, I watch most games every week and I would say the exact opposite to this and say that 99.9% of the time it would have been a penalty or the very least another scrum. The NRL also said that the Tigers player had ample time to fall on the ball. So its alright to get it wrong if the player has time to fall on the ball. I personally felt more anger at being robbed in the Roosters game . Had we won that I think we would be playing St George next week.
Welcome aboard John, I agree with your post. The Roosters should have disappeared in round 1 of the finals, we had the week off and played the Titans, while StG played the Warriors most likely. Wests v StG in the Grand Final. I don't remember ever being more upset about a "loss" than that Roosters debacle.
I'm still amazed at how a couple of really poor ref calls can change an entire finals series. Yeah more than likely the Titans would have beaten the Panthers, not too sure about the Warriors beating the Raiders at home though, but we'll never know now.

I wonder if Warriors supporters were kicking up a stink after the first week of the finals?

hadds75
Member
Member
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 9:47 pm

Post by hadds75 » Tue 28 Sep, 2010 11:06 am

It was a penalty but not a suspenision. It was very very hard on Jeremy Smith as he as running at full pelt. HOWEVER, there is a duty of care, and you cant knee in the back and he made no attempt to withdraw his knees. It is no differnet to the Dwyer penalty vs Canberra with 3 minutes to go. very very HARSH, but you can not make contact with the head (although I dont even think dwyer did). Its the same principle hear, whether deliberate or unintentional, you cant knee someone in the back, particularly leading with knees.

william rodgers
Member
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat 17 Apr, 2010 10:53 am

Post by william rodgers » Tue 28 Sep, 2010 11:53 am

Dont know why anyone is surprised @ these decisions, these are the two teams the league wanted. bad boy turns good in carney & the chokers who havent won since 79. now they have what they wanted.

Post Reply