Phil Gould says NO TRY

@Tony33 said:
@Cultured Bogan said:
We never looked like scoring, so it didn't mean jack whether they ruled it a try or not. We would have finished up 2-0 instead of 8-0.

Im not saying we deserved to win BUT

Had it of been 2-0 we would've taken one of a few opportunities to have a shot at goal in the last 10 minutes.

That call whether rightly or adjudicated or not had a massive impact on the game.

Not only that, the mentality would have been different towards the end knowing a try could have won the game. Parra would have also been nervous had it been a 2 point game at the back end.
 
Phil Gould is a knob.

People with better integrity and genuine credentials should be used to support a theory as opposed to this tool.
 
Phil Gould is a flog. Hear he may be leaving Penrith. Right after he booted Ivan Cleary for a poor season which was hardly his fault (prelim finalists the year before). Obviously the five year plan included himself. Weak.
 
@CocaCola said:
@Tony33 said:
@Cultured Bogan said:
We never looked like scoring, so it didn't mean jack whether they ruled it a try or not. We would have finished up 2-0 instead of 8-0.

Im not saying we deserved to win BUT

Had it of been 2-0 we would've taken one of a few opportunities to have a shot at goal in the last 10 minutes.

That call whether rightly or adjudicated or not had a massive impact on the game.

Not only that, the mentality would have been different towards the end knowing a try could have won the game. Parra would have also been nervous had it been a 2 point game at the back end.

Could have been different if they didn't spill the pill, the halves found the men on the edge with their kicking and didn't give away penalties.

They coulda, they shoulda, they woulda… They didn't!
 
We all know they coulda shoulda..

The point still remains, if Team A is trailing Team B by less then a try it can make all the difference come the back end of the game regardless of how well or bad they were playing beforehand.
Luck, adrenaline, nerves can all play a part.

Take WT's and Parra out of that equation, and you won't be making the same statement.
In general sense, being behind by 2 vs 8 is a huge difference, to downplay that statement is day dreaming..
 
I agree with Phil Gould … It was no try.

But a precedent has been set in that the video overrides reality. So let's hope moving forward consistency prevails and the video is the be all end all.
 
@Swordy said:
Phil Gould is a knob.

People with better integrity and genuine credentials should be used to support a theory as opposed to this tool.

Your first sentence is correct.
Your second not so much. He has more than enough credentials to comment and he is correct.
However we had PLENTY of opportunities to win that game…far more than Parra had. If we took half our chances we win easily.
 
To everyone hating GUS, I say at least he has the balls to say things most wont.
I'm no Gus advocate but he says a lot more sensible things as opposed to the crap sometimes he spins
 
@CocaCola said:
We all know they coulda shoulda..

The point still remains, if Team A is trailing Team B by less then a try it can make all the difference come the back end of the game regardless of how well or bad they were playing beforehand.
Luck, adrenaline, nerves can all play a part.

Take WT's and Parra out of that equation, and you won't be making the same statement.
In general sense, being behind by 2 vs 8 is a huge difference, to downplay that statement is day dreaming..

Put any team in either position and I would still say the same thing. We didn't win because a dodgy try was given. We lost because we couldn't put together any meaningful attacking footy. A game is won and lost over 80 minutes, not a split second that a try is scored.
 

Members online

Back
Top