Every week, a new interpretation

[Goose]

Robbie did the same thing in origin why are you singling out Moltzen? Clearly must hate him no matter what. I thought He had a better case than Robbie too.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

was about to the same thing, he was belted going backwards, he had no shot at it after that

 

[Centaur]

Moltzen was obviously inhibited from making a try saving attempt - clear as day.

Sure he showed what a pea heart he is by giving up and sooking to the ref.

However no where in the rules does it say he has to continue to make tackle after being obstructed. He was clearly obstructed, penalty every day of the week - no matter what part of the field it occurs.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[happy_tiger]

Moltzen was obviously inhibited from making a try saving attempt - clear as day.

Sure he showed what a pea heart he is by giving up and sooking to the ref.

However no where in the rules does it say he has to continue to make tackle after being obstructed. He was clearly obstructed, penalty every day of the week - no matter what part of the field it occurs.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

I agree to a degree Centaur he doesn't have to continue making the tackle , but one of the first things you taught playing this game is to play by the whistle If you don't hear it keep going

And this annoys me about the Tigers as a whole sometimes

We seem to ignore the simple things we were taught as kids

Play the whistle

Never turn your back on the play and \ or the opposition

Move up in a straight line

Kick chase in a straight single line

Run straight and hard

 

[Juro]

Moltzen was obviously inhibited from making a try saving attempt - clear as day.

Sure he showed what a pea heart he is by giving up and sooking to the ref.

However no where in the rules does it say he has to continue to make tackle after being obstructed. He was clearly obstructed, penalty every day of the week - no matter what part of the field it occurs.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Yeah, that's how I saw it.

 

[Centaur]

Moltzen was obviously inhibited from making a try saving attempt - clear as day.

Sure he showed what a pea heart he is by giving up and sooking to the ref.

However no where in the rules does it say he has to continue to make tackle after being obstructed. He was clearly obstructed, penalty every day of the week - no matter what part of the field it occurs.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

I agree to a degree Centaur he doesn't have to continue making the tackle , but one of the first things you taught playing this game is to play by the whistle If you don't hear it keep going

And this annoys me about the Tigers as a whole sometimes

We seem to ignore the simple things we were taught as kids

Play the whistle

Never turn your back on the play and \ or the opposition

Move up in a straight line

Kick chase in a straight single line

Run straight and hard

No doubt - he should have played to the whistle.

The point I am trying to make is that whether he played to the whistle or not should not alter the application of the rules. Then again it does muddy the water to a certain degree - because had he continued to try stop the try, it would have perhaps indicated that had he not been obstructed, he would of had a better chance.

 

[RatedRKO]

From Bill Harrigan on NRL.com:

Wests Tigers v Panthers
>
Did you agree with the decision to award a try to the Panthers in the second half, was Wests Tigers fullback Tim Moltzen obstructed?
>
Tim Moltzen was obstructed, the decision should have been; no-try and a penalty to the Wests Tigers.

I really hope our season isn't decided by something like this.

 

[cktiger]

Everybody except the video ref knew it

 

[MacDougall]

From Bill Harrigan on NRL.com:

Wests Tigers v Panthers
>
Did you agree with the decision to award a try to the Panthers in the second half, was Wests Tigers fullback Tim Moltzen obstructed?
>
Tim Moltzen was obstructed, the decision should have been; no-try and a penalty to the Wests Tigers.

I really hope our season isn't decided by something like this.

I'm just glad we won. If we lost because of that I would have killed someone.

 

[weststigers4life]

From Bill Harrigan on NRL.com:

Wests Tigers v Panthers
>
Did you agree with the decision to award a try to the Panthers in the second half, was Wests Tigers fullback Tim Moltzen obstructed?
>
Tim Moltzen was obstructed, the decision should have been; no-try and a penalty to the Wests Tigers.

I really hope our season isn't decided by something like this.

it's good that they can admit when they made a wrong call, Was there any mention if the video ref was stood down for this weekend?
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_