Didn't matter in the end, but...

2

2041

Well-known member
I was wondering why they never showed a proper replay of the Wighton take in the in goal which led to the 100m Raiders try. All we got was the commentators insisting the refs got it right, "as they always do".

Yeah, not so much this time:
Yes, I know, play the whistle and all that - but when the game demands you sprint back to 30m to defend a full back running out of the in goal at full pelt that's hard to do. I really hate the zero tackle restart rule - it was meant to stop teams kicking negatively, not give a massive penalty for slightly mis-executed attacking kicks.
 
Thought the ref got it right and I thought he yelled 'Play On' immediately, enough times, and loud enough for a group of professional footballers to take notice. That was a very poor play from our boys.
 
What about the other kick off that hit Perenara?
Shouldn't that be scrum feed to the team that kicked it?. And seriously he has an acre of room to stand in how did he let it hit him, probably practicing to count to 6

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
 
It's the difference between good sides and great sides,great sides do not throw their hands up at the ref while their defensive line is being punctured,they make the tackles than give the ref a gob full!!!!
 
The players most at fault for giving up on the play were Buchanan and Lovett.

Just another example of them not being first graders.

Taylor has made some good improvements to his coaching but carrying these two are not doing him any favours.
 
@tiga4eva said:
What about the other kick off that hit Perenara?
Shouldn't that be scrum feed to the team that kicked it?. And seriously he has an acre of room to stand in how did he let it hit him, probably practicing to count to 6

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
Click to expand...

Didn't see any replay of that incident but it did look like it hit him,if that was the case then it should be a scrum feed to the team whose attacking half the incident occurred in. Perenara is getting quite the 'balls-up' resume going in a short space of time.
 
@Fade To Black said:
He left the ground from the field of play so it was the correct call from the refs to say play on. For a change.
Click to expand...

He'd already landed when he caught the ball. It only matters where you started from if you catch the ball while you're still in the air. Here's a comparison: you can't chase a grubber, jump from the in goal, land on both feet two metres past the dead ball line and then bat it back into play!

Incidentally, I totally agree that Buchanan and others (I didn't notice Lovett myself but I'm sure it's possible) mucked up the play. What I'm saying is that the restart rule forces players to make impossible decisions by turning attack into defence in an instant. That would be ok if it was because of some brilliant piece of skill from the fullback, like when one claims a kick deep in the in goal and beats several players on the way out. But that's not the case. What we have here is defending sides being given a completely unearned reward for what might be fractionally mis-executed attacking kicks.
 
@Fade To Black said:
@tiga4eva said:
What about the other kick off that hit Perenara?
Shouldn't that be scrum feed to the team that kicked it?. And seriously he has an acre of room to stand in how did he let it hit him, probably practicing to count to 6

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

Didn't see any replay of that incident but it did look like it hit him,if that was the case then it should be a scrum feed to the team whose attacking half the incident occurred in. Perenara is getting quite the 'balls-up' resume going in a short space of time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It definitely hit Perenara's arm…..apparently that is play on!
 
I thought he caught it before he went into the in goal on first look so I will give the refs a pass. Tough decision to make.
 
I thought from a front on view ( so where maxwell was) it looked field of play, but from rear view looked like his foot was in goal and then caught the ball. Even Sisa was pointing back to the 20m and he was the closest to the catch.
\
\
Also the play that was a kick inside to Austin that he stuffed up, he was a mile offside.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
 
@saundo1982 said:
Also the play that was a kick inside to Austin that he stuffed up, he was a mile offside.
Click to expand...

Possibly 2 miles.
Also, his punch on the ball after that midfield bomb bounced went 2m fwd, and yet the Raiders somehow ended up with 6 again.

Thought the game was very poorly refereed for both sides.
 
@ricksen said:
@saundo1982 said:
Also the play that was a kick inside to Austin that he stuffed up, he was a mile offside.

Possibly 2 miles.
Also, his punch on the ball after that midfield bomb bounced went 2m fwd, and yet the Raiders somehow ended up with 6 again.

Thought the game was very poorly refereed for both sides.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Watching live at the ground didn't think much to the hit of the ball and Tigers did after that get hands on the ball but lost it so as such 6 again was right call. But watching a replay on TV the ball did look to go a yard or 2 forward from Austin.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
 
The thing with that call for the blokes who retreated to the 20, if you dont react immediately you get caught out, it was very unfortunate.

Im sure he was in the in goal when he caught it as well, im sure his back foot was down before he touched it.

On the next kick that hit the post I thought that Wighton used a canberra player as a shepherd to get past Galloway
 
@Fade To Black said:
He left the ground from the field of play so it was the correct call from the refs to say play on. For a change.
Click to expand...

If you look at the pic that Ink posted in the Referees thread his foot is definitely on the line

That screwed the pooch on that call

As I continue to say , it was a tight call and video ref is there precisely for that reason :brick:

If we aren't going to use it , get rid of it

Simple
 
@happy tiger said:
If you look at the pic that Ink posted in the Referees thread his foot is definitely on the line

That screwed the pooch on that call

As I continue to say , it was a tight call and video ref is there precisely for that reason :brick:

If we aren't going to use it , get rid of it

Simple
Click to expand...

OK simple or should I say Happy….the Vid Ref is there to check TRIES that are sent up by the on-field Ref....If the Muppet doesn't send it up ...which he didn't he can't do anything...

FTR stills give a false impression....watching the replay I believe he left the field of play and caught it before grounding his foot....50/50 at best....

Horsehead called play on several times.....Our defence dropped the ball...

You say get rid of the Vid Ref...fair enough...that would not have changed the on'field decision of play-on and the same result would have occurred....
\
\
Easy fix Play the WHISTLE....
 
@2041 said:
@Fade To Black said:
He left the ground from the field of play so it was the correct call from the refs to say play on. For a change.

He'd already landed when he caught the ball. It only matters where you started from if you catch the ball while you're still in the air. Here's a comparison: you can't chase a grubber, jump from the in goal, land on both feet two metres past the dead ball line and then bat it back into play!

Incidentally, I totally agree that Buchanan and others (I didn't notice Lovett myself but I'm sure it's possible) mucked up the play. What I'm saying is that the restart rule forces players to make impossible decisions by turning attack into defence in an instant. That would be ok if it was because of some brilliant piece of skill from the fullback, like when one claims a kick deep in the in goal and beats several players on the way out. But that's not the case. What we have here is defending sides being given a completely unearned reward for what might be fractionally mis-executed attacking kicks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Totally agree and it's a very unfair.rule.

Yet it's the basis for so called Taylor ball. …defensive attacking kicks avoiding 7 tackle sets
 
@Geo. said:
@happy tiger said:
If you look at the pic that Ink posted in the Referees thread his foot is definitely on the line

That screwed the pooch on that call

As I continue to say , it was a tight call and video ref is there precisely for that reason :brick:

If we aren't going to use it , get rid of it

Simple

OK simple or should I say Happy….the Vid Ref is there to check TRIES that are sent up by the on-field Ref....If the Muppet doesn't send it up ...which he didn't he can't do anything...

FTR stills give a false impression....watching the replay I believe he left the field of play and caught it before grounding his foot....50/50 at best....

Horsehead called play on several times.....Our defence dropped the ball...

You say get rid of the Vid Ref...fair enough...that would not have changed the on'field decision of play-on and the same result would have occurred....
\
\
Easy fix Play the WHISTLE....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

If your not going to use it for 50/50 calls which is what it was introduced for , get rid of it

This is still a call that people are arguing about :brick:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 905 (members: 38, guests: 867)
Back
Top