Long_Distance_Tiger
New member
Quite right Stryker. As I said previously, we should have been ahead by at least 20\. If we'd been able to capitalise on the opportunities we had, the final try would have meant diddly squat!!
Tackle on Ryan without the ball.
- Thread starter sunshine_coast_tiger
- Start date
matty_tiepie
New member
yes we should have won by plenty but that does not take away the fact that we were still very unlucky with that being given a try. i bet if the situation was the other way around it would have been given no try as we dont seem to get many 50 50 decisions.
simonthetiger
New member
So because we should have been in front by plenty its ok that a huge refereeing blunder costs us the game??
May as well add it was Sheens/Fitzy/Simmons…..not Folkesy's fault.
\
\
Reeeeeeeeediculous.
May as well add it was Sheens/Fitzy/Simmons…..not Folkesy's fault.
\
\
Reeeeeeeeediculous.
Paris_Cobbs
New member
Even if we had been 20 points ahead, it's six points against the for and against differential. Don't forget we missed the play-offs on for and against in 2007.
It absolutely was not a try. You can't barrel into someone without the ball, whether it's deliberate or not. We probably would have hung on for a win, which was what we needed even if it was meritless.
It absolutely was not a try. You can't barrel into someone without the ball, whether it's deliberate or not. We probably would have hung on for a win, which was what we needed even if it was meritless.
In Summary most commentators online have agreed that the TIGERS were hard done by with that decission.
What can you do??? We should have been up by 12…
I reckon Sheens should Be Sacked....
What can you do??? We should have been up by 12…
I reckon Sheens should Be Sacked....
IronTiger
Active member
Move along nothing to see here….
