Luke Brooks Dive

[Hear_The_Roar]


Facing Brooks, Gower hit him on the left side (the inside) when running at him. By going inside it meant that Brooks had to commit to the tackle.

He had to make a decision to stay where he was and turn slightly towards Gower. He could easily have stepped to his left but he committed to Gower and pushed off him.

 

[jirskyr]

I don't understand anybody sticking up for Parra in this situation.

Brooks is already pushing away from Gower when he cops a hit on his right shoulder and has his right leg taken away. He steps and falls.

If he doesn't fall, he covers the fullback and Lawrence does not come in. He does fall and it is completely because of Gower.

It is utter BS that people think dummy runner can make contact with defenders and get away with it. You are a dummy runner, you are not allowed to contact defenders.

There have been several controversial decisions recently but that has nothing to do with this one being 100% correct.

Because if the try is awarded, you are saying that dummy runners can collect the inside shoulder of defenders without penalty, which means they really don't have to go through the line after all.

Parra scored a few minutes later anyway, they can't have both those tries.

 

[Hear_The_Roar]

Yet Brooks still says
"It was 50/50" and "I don't *think* so"

He's not too sure that "it is completely because of Gower"

End of the decoy runner I say. There will be flops galore in the next few weeks.

Also he was NEVER going to make that tackle on Norman (who is not the Parra fullback BTW)

 

[Yossarian]

Stop trying to misrepresent what Brooks said. The exact quote to the question Did you take a dive is "I don't think so. He ran into me. I couldn't do anything else." He said the video ref decision on whether it was a try was a 50/50 call. He does not say it was 50/50 whether he dived or not.

 

[innsaneink]

Suck it up, H t R

 

[Sabre]

Brad Arthur blew up saying Luke Brookes took a dive…

How about instead of blaiming Brooksie you blame your own dumb forward for running straight at him.

 

[Majere77]

Good too see we still have the most one-eyed supporters in the game.

If that decision went against us you'd all be carrying on a treat.

As a tigers supporter I have no problem admitting I thing brooks milked it and It wasn't even close to an obstruction in my opinion. I think we were very luck to get away with it.

 

[Hear_The_Roar]

Stop trying to misrepresent what Brooks said. The exact quote to the question Did you take a dive is "I don't think so. He ran into me. I couldn't do anything else." He said the video ref decision on whether it was a try was a 50/50 call. He does not say it was 50/50 whether he dived or not.

Blog title says it all.

50/50 call by video ref as to whether he took a dive or not.
I never said he said it was 50/50 about himself rating his dive.

And yes that is right he did say "I don't think so."

Who the feck says that?! It should be "No, I didn't" if you are sure about it.

Did you ride a horse into the stadium "ummm I don;t think so". Did you eat shit for breakfast "I don't think so"… hmm let me check again hahaha

He was clearly unsure.

 

[Tim Sheens]


Facing Brooks, Gower hit him on the left side (the inside) when running at him. By going inside it meant that Brooks had to commit to the tackle.

He had to make a decision to stay where he was and turn slightly towards Gower. He could easily have stepped to his left but he committed to Gower and pushed off him.

You want to argue the decision, yet you show the proof that it was correct. Gower touches Brooks before the ball gets to NORMAN, thus no try, just as every single one should be.

 

[Yossarian]

Stop trying to misrepresent what Brooks said. The exact quote to the question Did you take a dive is "I don't think so. He ran into me. I couldn't do anything else." He said the video ref decision on whether it was a try was a 50/50 call. He does not say it was 50/50 whether he dived or not.

Blog title says it all.

50/50 call by video ref as to whether he took a dive or not.
I never said he said it was 50/50 about himself rating his dive.

And yes that is right he did say "I don't think so."

Who the feck says that?! It should be "No, I didn't" if you are sure about it.

Did you ride a horse into the stadium "ummm I don;t think so". Did you eat s*** for breakfast "I don't think so"… hmm let me check again hahaha

He was clearly unsure.

Your last post suggests Brooks said the 50/50 comment in relation to the dive. He was asked a subjective question and at that press conference and at today's recovery session he was clear in stating that he fell because Gower ran into him. Yet you choose to ignore that for whatever reason. Call it a dive if you want but don't imply Brooks suggested he dived. He did nothing of the sort.

 

[Hear_The_Roar]


Facing Brooks, Gower hit him on the left side (the inside) when running at him. By going inside it meant that Brooks had to commit to the tackle.

He had to make a decision to stay where he was and turn slightly towards Gower. He could easily have stepped to his left but he committed to Gower and pushed off him.

You want to argue the decision, yet you show the proof that it was correct. Gower touches Brooks before the ball gets to Hayne, thus no try, just as every single one should be.

Hayne never touches the ball. Norman does.
Hayne is in the backplay to the left.

Brooks just needs a pair :wink:

See you guys in the finals! Lets hope it's a fair match :smiley:

 

[Newtown]


Facing Brooks, Gower hit him on the left side (the inside) when running at him. By going inside it meant that Brooks had to commit to the tackle.

He had to make a decision to stay where he was and turn slightly towards Gower. He could easily have stepped to his left but he committed to Gower and pushed off him.

You want to argue the decision, yet you show the proof that it was correct. Gower touches Brooks before the ball gets to Hayne, thus no try, just as every single one should be.

Hayne never touches the ball. Norman does.
Hayne is in the backplay to the left.

Brooks just needs a pair :wink:

See you guys in the finals! Lets hope it's a fair match :smiley:

That's funny, you are accusing Brooks of not telling the truth yet in your early post you said you are not a Parra supporter. Maybe you should have said "I don't think that I am a Parra supporter".

 

[Black_n_White]


Facing Brooks, Gower hit him on the left side (the inside) when running at him. By going inside it meant that Brooks had to commit to the tackle.

He had to make a decision to stay where he was and turn slightly towards Gower. He could easily have stepped to his left but he committed to Gower and pushed off him.

You want to argue the decision, yet you show the proof that it was correct. Gower touches Brooks before the ball gets to Hayne, thus no try, just as every single one should be.

Hayne never touches the ball. Norman does.
Hayne is in the backplay to the left.

Brooks just needs a pair :wink:

See you guys in the finals! Lets hope it's a fair match :smiley:

Ok, lets get some perspective. Ryan Tandy was barred for life for betting on games, yet Parra play a half who was also busted for gambling on games yet hushed… whats the difference between punting on the first scoring option or whether you kick a 40-20...

Further, the rules count for crap, you play to the referees interpretation. A baseball pitcher throws to the umpire of the days strikezone, hell Manly score after the buzzer but it wasnt the whistle from the ref, players stay down on questionable contact to allow for video to award penalties and have hits on report that otherwise slipped the whistle... If you are outwitted by a superior player, dont hate the player, hate the game.

We played for years with negative football IQ. We now have a kid who knows the game, not only football, THE GAME. To any Tigers fan who is kicking a stink, in these calls you are either smart enough to play the game, or you are played, perpetrator or victim... Its no different to Robbie running the ruck for offside penalty, its working the rules, working the refs.

On here I have seen people bag his game, he has game by the bucketload. He ran at the line and drifted but was left stranded, many times, it was like he had spiders on him ALA Johns, defenders didnt commit for fear... It takes years for many players to commit a pro foul like Brooks weeks back, many careers end without being wiley enough to play the sheperd, play the rules, the best players do, the mugs wouldnt even know how to.

 

[innsaneink]

Brooks has a footy brain, hes made some line ball decisions late in games that your typical RL athlete wouldnt even think of.

Too smart

Suck it up HtR

 

[southerntiger]

Luke didnt dive. Anyone who thinks he did has never played footy at a decent level.

It all happened at speed and was well out from the tryline. Gower took his leg out and he fell as physics demands. There was no reason for Brooks to dive.

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_

 

[Hear_The_Roar]


Facing Brooks, Gower hit him on the left side (the inside) when running at him. By going inside it meant that Brooks had to commit to the tackle.

He had to make a decision to stay where he was and turn slightly towards Gower. He could easily have stepped to his left but he committed to Gower and pushed off him.

You want to argue the decision, yet you show the proof that it was correct. Gower touches Brooks before the ball gets to Hayne, thus no try, just as every single one should be.

Hayne never touches the ball. Norman does.
Hayne is in the backplay to the left.

Brooks just needs a pair :wink:

See you guys in the finals! Lets hope it's a fair match :smiley:

That's funny, you are accusing Brooks of not telling the truth yet in your early post you said you are not a Parra supporter. Maybe you should have said "I don't think that I am a Parra supporter".

Haha touche'!

"I don't think I'm a Parra supporter"
"It's a 50/50 decision as to if you believe I am. Someone forced me on here and I had nowhere to go but type a post"

 

[shane2801]

What's worse, a player taking a dive or a player claiming a try when he knows he didn't ground it? How many times does the latter happen every week? All players are as bad as one another. Good on Brooks for getting away with it.

 

[Gazman]

Whether he tripped or dived the only difference to the score would have been if Parra did not score a few minutes later and had Sandow converted this would not be a talking point. For those who think he dived really believe Parra would have scored twice to ensure the victory or absolutely certain that had the try been given that Sandow would have converted that one. In the end they had the chance to win the game with conversions and failed. We have lost games in previous years through poor goal kicking even when being the better side.
Its a brave call to think Brooks would have taken the fall on the expectation that he was not going to make the tackle and pray for a favourable video ref decision. Big risk IMO

 

[Black_n_White]

"I don't think I'm a Parra supporter"
"It's a 50/50 decision as to if you believe I am. Someone forced me on here and I had nowhere to go but type a post"

must have been a decent calibre…

 

[Tim Sheens]


Facing Brooks, Gower hit him on the left side (the inside) when running at him. By going inside it meant that Brooks had to commit to the tackle.

He had to make a decision to stay where he was and turn slightly towards Gower. He could easily have stepped to his left but he committed to Gower and pushed off him.

You want to argue the decision, yet you show the proof that it was correct. Gower touches Brooks before the ball gets to NORMAN, thus no try, just as every single one should be.

Hayne never touches the ball. Norman does.
Hayne is in the backplay to the left.

Brooks just needs a pair :wink:

See you guys in the finals! Lets hope it's a fair match :smiley:

Should have checked before posting, but have edited the post and upper cased the correct name. Think Parra, think Hayne.

You should send a PM to Roosterman to arrange a get together as you have something in common and he may also need a bit of TLC.