GNR4LIFE
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 42,033
If we weren't so inept in giving up a 22 point lead, this would be a non issue. Time to stop blaming bad calls and start putting the onus on the players.
The Shepherd
- Thread starter alistair
- Start date
southerntiger
New member
@GNR4LIFE said:
Everyone agrees that the team shouldnt have given up a 22 point lead. We are discussing whether or not it was a correct decision. IMO it wasnt. Doesnt mean I blame it for our loss.
_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
Tim Sheens
Well-known member
Happy to accept the no try decision on the basis of an historical play that was called a shepherd, however, that unwritten rule has been confined to the annals of history for many a year now. I would say way more than a hundred tries have been allowed in the meantime under the "obstruction" guidelines, so it confounds me.
It used to be pretty basic for mine and there was little conjecture when more than a single decoy was deployed, but now we have all this inside shoulder, outside shoulder etcetera clouding the issue, and that is before taking a possible dive into account.
Also, little doubt that Pappali was not remonstrating about any obstruction, he was expecting the feined chip that Robbie sold them.
It used to be pretty basic for mine and there was little conjecture when more than a single decoy was deployed, but now we have all this inside shoulder, outside shoulder etcetera clouding the issue, and that is before taking a possible dive into account.
Also, little doubt that Pappali was not remonstrating about any obstruction, he was expecting the feined chip that Robbie sold them.
It was a Russell Smith penalty. The sort of overly technical ones you see in Union.
innsaneink
Well-known member
Yeh but we shouldnt even have had the ball….scrum with our feed prior to that set was off an incorrect knock on ruling against rapana...should have been a canberra ball...
At least we didn't throw bottles…
Tiger_Watto
New member
@Geo. said:
^^ This ^^
There was advantage gained… If it happened on the halfway line on the 3rd tackle, nothing wouldve been done about it.
A howler of a decision regardless of the outcome!
_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
Sorry, but the no try to brooks was another glaring look at how poor the desion making is!!
Galloway ran straight through the line, not one person was impeded not ONE!
Farah also was only line ball running behind him and when he was completely through the line.
The last Canberra try came off the back of a another poor call by that crap ref of a 5 tackle set to our guys working it out off our line!!!!
Can't u count morons, am mm what comes after four?????????
The 10 meters were skinny every time we had the ball but no penalties…
Seriously we have had not one fifty/fifty call go our way..
Now I know we should still not lost that game but its like we are playing against 19-21 man squad!
Galloway ran straight through the line, not one person was impeded not ONE!
Farah also was only line ball running behind him and when he was completely through the line.
The last Canberra try came off the back of a another poor call by that crap ref of a 5 tackle set to our guys working it out off our line!!!!
Can't u count morons, am mm what comes after four?????????
The 10 meters were skinny every time we had the ball but no penalties…
Seriously we have had not one fifty/fifty call go our way..
Now I know we should still not lost that game but its like we are playing against 19-21 man squad!
BlackandGoldForever
New member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2014
- Messages
- 961
@GNR4LIFE said:
Yep agree, shouldn't have let them come back in the first place so we could even be talking about this
Video refs have no idea have no consistency at all but we should have been in a big enough lead to not even worry about this
When they made the ruling i thought it was correct.
Now Im not so sure.
INk on the Canberra dropped ball immediately before the try/no try, I watched it in slow mo (after the game) and I reckon he probably touched it.
Disappointing, the Woods miss to start the rot was a shocker, and the Brooks miss at the end was bad as well.
Now Im not so sure.
INk on the Canberra dropped ball immediately before the try/no try, I watched it in slow mo (after the game) and I reckon he probably touched it.
Disappointing, the Woods miss to start the rot was a shocker, and the Brooks miss at the end was bad as well.
Correct call by the book, although commonsense says the opposite.
If it was Canberra on the other side of this call and they called try, we would be blowing up. By the book the refs made the correct call, but its a rule which they really do need to get right, because the shambles it is has been going on too long.
If it was Canberra on the other side of this call and they called try, we would be blowing up. By the book the refs made the correct call, but its a rule which they really do need to get right, because the shambles it is has been going on too long.
the call was correct it was a shepherd for all money in the old days but today I have seen dozens let go. what I cant under stand why the ref didn't blow the whistle for the shepherd straight away no nee4d to go up to video its a penalty if it happened in the middle of the park does he go up to the video NO he blows a penalty I for the love of me cant see how the video ref can pass judgment on a shepherd may be I am just a stupid old man
The rule has changed from Rd 3….
Reynolds receives the Ball
Runs Behind Glen Stewart who contacts WT defenders
Reynolds then passes to Inglis who scores
GLORY GLORY to South Syd.....wait
Reynolds receives the Ball
Runs Behind Glen Stewart who contacts WT defenders
Reynolds then passes to Inglis who scores
GLORY GLORY to South Syd.....wait
IMO it wasn't a shepherd or obstruction but then again these things happen and you wont hear Wicky complaining about the 50/50 calls.The WT only have themselves to blame for the loss.
The ref certainly mucked up that tackle count before the last Raiders try but i wouldn't expect any admission from the refs as they are never wrong apparently.
For the record 1st tackle-Ted 2nd-Pat 3rd-Halatau 4th-Sue 5th Rowdy.
Take a bow Henry and go back to kindergarden to learn to count and remember the WT are fully capable of orchestrating their own defeats without your help.
The ref certainly mucked up that tackle count before the last Raiders try but i wouldn't expect any admission from the refs as they are never wrong apparently.
For the record 1st tackle-Ted 2nd-Pat 3rd-Halatau 4th-Sue 5th Rowdy.
Take a bow Henry and go back to kindergarden to learn to count and remember the WT are fully capable of orchestrating their own defeats without your help.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2011
- Messages
- 63,490
@Tiger Watto said:
It was a no try TW
If Farah had kicked or passed the ball before Keefy reaches the defence it is play on
Classic Shepherd call
The five tackle ruling annoys me as it must take the Raiders 40 seconds to play the ball Surely 1 official noticed it and could of spoken to the on field refs
Not good enough
Bull….He was through the line before Farah ran behind the same thing you 30 times a game...see Souff's Exhibit A above....explain that one ...
happy_tiger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2011
- Messages
- 63,490
@Geo. said:
Its Souths
Thus endeth the lesson
A rule is a rule no matter how inadequate it now is
Same as our coach said
mike
Well-known member
@underdog said:
I totally agree. This happens multiple times a game and never gets pulled up. It's the old fashioned shepherd rule. Hasn't been enforced for years.
However we still should not have squandered a 22-nil lead.
_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
Tiger_Watto
New member
Happy, there is no such thing as a Shepherd in the Rule Book… Actually, a player in possession CAN run behind his own players, as long as no opposition player is obstructed from actually making an attempt of tackle.
Unless FPN is Superman, he was never going to be in a position to tackle Farah!
Unless FPN is Superman, he was never going to be in a position to tackle Farah!
