20 years ago...

[TigersFan4Life]

…if you lost the ball while trying to score it was a knock-on and if you ran behind one of your players it was a shepherd. Nice and simple. These days both things are perfectly fine. The changes that have been made to the rules have changed the game to its detriment.

 

[stryker]

He didnt drop the ball and it wasnt a shepard…you are wrong.

 

[TigersFan4Life]

So it's perfectly fine for a player who does not have the ball to just run into the defensive line and then for one of his teammates who does have the ball to take advantage of the confusion that causes? 20 years ago we never had decoy runners. Hell, Thurston ran behind Thaiday in the lead up to the first try, also.

 

[alex]

If you're talking about the Hodges try it wasn't a shepherd… Farah had his hands in the air before the player touched him and he made more of an effort trying to milk the penalty than to tackle the ball runner

 

[cktiger]

I have watched it 20 times - and it's a shepherd every time.
It's a shame Queenslanders can never truly hold their heads high while they can't seem to win without a controversial call or two ALWAYS going their way.

 

[Yossarian]

It was a Russell Smith penalty. Personally I didn't see much obstruction - if there was a penalty it was a very technical one. Having said that:

Sam Thaiday I thought clearly knocked on in the first half
Tate should have been penalised for punching Gallen not the other way around
Whoever it was who twice kicked Tamou before he fell on top of him and was penalised should have been penalised instead
The officiating of holding players down was very subjective and one-sided.

 

[alex]

It was a Russell Smith penalty. Personally I didn't see much obstruction - if there was a penalty it was a very technical one. Having said that:

Sam Thaiday I thought clearly knocked on in the first half
**Tate should have been penalised for punching Gallen not the other way around**
Whoever it was who twice kicked Tamou before he fell on top of him and was penalised should have been penalised instead
The officiating of holding players down was very subjective and one-sided.

I was watching at the pub so I couldn't hear the commentary - that Tate/Grant/Gallen punch up a few minutes in, I thought the penalty went to QLD for the initial high tackle from Grant? But agree that Tate was a bit of a dog by punching a guy on the ground

 

[tigerbenji]

If some one had of punched Tate they would of said what a weak act as the man has a neck brace, double standards?.

 

[Goose]

I cant see how it wasnt a shepard. If it was penalisedand no try given, no one complains, not even the Qld players themselves. Same with Inglis try in game 1.

They now have all these complicated guidelines, IMO necessitated by the numerous replays available, they feel they have to quantify decisions.

Now we have black and white rules, and we end up with some shocking decisions that go against what we know "should be right"

 

[stryker]

It was a Russell Smith penalty. Personally I didn't see much obstruction - if there was a penalty it was a very technical one. Having said that:
\
\
The officiating of holding players down was very subjective and one-sided.

Agreed. GI was held down every single time he was tackled. One in particular (Morris I think?) was terrible he had 3 goes at him after the tackle was made.

 

[Glen_McWilliams]

He didnt drop the ball and it wasnt a shepard…you are wrong.

Are you disagreeing with King Wally?
Isn't that an offence punishable by death up your way?

 

[Yossarian]

It was a Russell Smith penalty. Personally I didn't see much obstruction - if there was a penalty it was a very technical one. Having said that:

Sam Thaiday I thought clearly knocked on in the first half
**Tate should have been penalised for punching Gallen not the other way around**
Whoever it was who twice kicked Tamou before he fell on top of him and was penalised should have been penalised instead
The officiating of holding players down was very subjective and one-sided.

I was watching at the pub so I couldn't hear the commentary - that Tate/Grant/Gallen punch up a few minutes in, I thought the penalty went to QLD for the initial high tackle from Grant? But agree that Tate was a bit of a dog by punching a guy on the ground

The replay suggested Tate punched Gallen from the ground during the tackle and that's what led to the fight. The penalty was for Gallen throwing the first punch.

 

[alex]

The replay suggested Tate punched Gallen from the ground during the tackle and that's what led to the fight. The penalty was for Gallen throwing the first punch.

Ah righto, thanks Yoss. Hate not being able to hear the commentary clearly!

 

[Yossarian]

The replay suggested Tate punched Gallen from the ground during the tackle and that's what led to the fight. The penalty was for Gallen throwing the first punch.

Ah righto, thanks Yoss. Hate not being able to hear the commentary clearly!

Dunno about that - when you've got Senile old Rabs and Phil "I can't stop loving Queensland" Gould, having no audio could be a good thing.

 

[cktiger]

Tate should have been penalised and it should have been ruled no try - everybody could see both clearly except the refs (again)

 

[stryker]

Tate should have been penalised…I agree with that but have no problem whatsoever with the Hodges try. There was numerous blues defenders still in play who were all to concerned with whinging to make the tackle. Number one rule....play the whistle. Hodges should have been easily stopped. No one had a real go at him...too bad so sad.

 

[cktiger]

Tate should have been penalised…I agree with that but have no problem whatsoever with the Hodges try. There was numerous blues defenders still in play who were all to concerned with whinging to make the tackle. Number one rule....play the whistle. Hodges should have been easily stopped. No one had a real go at him...too bad so sad.

Agree they should have played the whistle stryker but it doesn't change the fact it SHOULD have been a penalty.
Been waiting a long time to hear the whistle blown in favour of NSW….... :unamused:

 

[barra]

I don't think any NSW player was impeded who could have made a tackle on Hodges. That said, every week we see players surrendering themselves to the defence as soon as they run behind one of their own - or being penalised for it.

In that context it is a wrong decision, pure and simple. Double standards, and Fittler and Wally were correct in their assumption that it should not have been allowed.

 

[barra]

And talking about 20 years ago, after watching the 1992 SOS III replay on Tuesday night, it was interesting to note that without the 'no stripping rule' in place it made absolutely no difference to the game! There was one ball strip that I recall, and little attempt at it.

This rule should be dropped to take the controversy of 'loose ball carry' vs 'illegal strip' out of the ruck area in club games.

Also, there still seemed to be some inconsistency in play the ball speed/allowing tacklers leeway, so not sure how that is ever going to be solved…

 

[underdog]

If you're talking about the Hodges try it wasn't a shepherd… Farah had his hands in the air before the player touched him and he made more of an effort trying to milk the penalty than to tackle the ball runner

the shepherd wasn't on Farah - I thought that initally as well - but it was the shepherd on Beau Scott which is causing the grief.

The act of running around behind a player causing a hole to appear in the defensive line is what the issue is.