OFFICIAL Kelma Tuilagi

1651542739442.png

This one was a real clanger. Rochow certainly looks to be square given his forward movement. But Kleine thought it was worth a penalty in front to give Broncos a 1 point win.
 
Not certain, but don’t think the tackled in the air rule applies in goal, else defender would have to watch attacker catch ball and just fall to ground with ball for try
 
rex2ce said:
Not certain, but don’t think the tackled in the air rule applies in goal, else defender would have to watch attacker catch ball and just fall to ground with ball for try
Click to expand...
He manipulates the situation adversely for us by attempting to dislodge the ball (and plays at the attackers ball-carrying arm) rather than waiting and bracing for contact (as defenders instructed to do) via trying to wrap the ball up and/or going for a 1-on-1 strip.

There was another player involved in the tackle for mine as he hits the ground, plus, referee had already clearly ruled the contact on Kelma beginning AFTER the contest would constitute a penalty due to foul-play.

So, they either disagree with on field and call play on or Dragons ball for a knock-on… which it wasn’t, because full separation was never established, or penalty TRY.

Don’t shoot the messenger
 
Last edited:
LeichhardtTiger said:
It's a TRY - the bottom hand never leaves the ball and the ball lands on the grass. TRY TRY TRY
Click to expand...
This is what the Bunker should have said:
"Tuilagi catches the ball in the in goal area and is then taken out by Dragons Lomax in mid-air. At this point, he still has control of the ball. Checking the grounding. Tuilagi is in possession and looks to touch down. He releases his left hand which was on top of the ball but his right hand remains in contact with the ball as it contacts the in goal. We have a decision" - TRY!
 
LeichhardtTiger said:
This is what the Bunker should have said:
"Tuilagi catches the ball in the in goal area and is then taken out by Dragons Lomax in mid-air. At this point, he still has control of the ball. Checking the grounding. Tuilagi is in possession and looks to touch down. He releases his left hand which was on top of the ball but his right hand remains in contact with the ball as it contacts the in goal. We have a decision" - TRY!
Click to expand...
Refs call? Professional foul? 10 in the bin? Foul play in the act of a player scoring? Simultaneously lost as he grounds it? 8-point try? Dragons didn’t challenge refs call? The look on Kelma’s face?

Priceless…
 
LeichhardtTiger said:
This is what the Bunker should have said:
"Tuilagi catches the ball in the in goal area and is then taken out by Dragons Lomax in mid-air. At this point, he still has control of the ball. Checking the grounding. Tuilagi is in possession and looks to touch down. He releases his left hand which was on top of the ball but his right hand remains in contact with the ball as it contacts the in goal. We have a decision" - TRY!
Click to expand...
What are you doing on Saturday at 3pm mate?
 
rex2ce said:
Not certain, but don’t think the tackled in the air rule applies in goal, else defender would have to watch attacker catch ball and just fall to ground with ball for try
Click to expand...
That may or may not be the case, but if so, doesn’t make sense. If the attacking layer can be tackled on suspicion in the in goal, then surely we would see a free for all every time we see a loose ball.
Something’s not right?
This is the same Ashley Klein who pinged Rochow for not standing square while ptb. How many times has he pulled this rule out to give a team the win?
How many times does he need to be suspended?
Regardless of whether he’s on the park or in the bunker, the guy is making crucial blunders which determine the outcome of a game.
If the bunker is going to overrule the ref’s decision to award a try, then the audience should be given clear evidence to support that.
 
LeichhardtTiger said:
This is what the Bunker should have said:
"Tuilagi catches the ball in the in goal area and is then taken out by Dragons Lomax in mid-air. At this point, he still has control of the ball. Checking the grounding. Tuilagi is in possession and looks to touch down. He releases his left hand which was on top of the ball but his right hand remains in contact with the ball as it contacts the in goal. We have a decision" - TRY!
Click to expand...
Well said. But the chances of the refs having a common sense unbiased view is about as much chance of the nrl saying sorry Tigers for ripping you off 3 times this year already so here are 6 comp points.
 
jirskyr said:
Someone will have to explain to me how you can bounce a football, without letting go of it, but not score a try. Physically impossible! Do we need to dig up the remains of Isaac Newton to explain it to the bunker?

Secondly as everyone has said - either Lomax commits a foul with a mid-air tackle, in which case it is a penalty-try, or he does not commit a foul and it's a knock-on. Please don't anyone tell me the Bunker thought Kelma would not have scored if Lomax had not tackled him illegally (deemed illegal per bunker penalty).

Just plain ineptitude and illogic from these apparent professionals.

Unfortunately we had lots of other opportunities to win the match, but Tigers are not a team that can do it all without some 50/50s falling our way.
Click to expand...
I am sure the current batch of officials failed geometry in high school. The never played snooker or pool either. They have absolutely no idea which way is up, sideways, down, forward or backwards.
 
mike said:
I am sure the current batch of officials failed geometry in high school. The never played snooker or pool either. They have absolutely no idea which way is up, sideways, down, forward or backwards.
Click to expand...
This guy will owe us major favour 😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 4,172 (members: 3, guests: 4,169)
Back
Top