The hit on Creagh

[Tommy Smith]

the ref had a blinder of a game.what happend with priyor when he was lifted by 3 players and he offloaded.how the ref came up with a roosters ball?whats he 2 do?get draged 10m back.im sure if he did that the ref wasnt going 2 give us the penalty

About two minutes after that O'Meley gave a beautiful off-load which was called a 'knock-on'. I think it's safe to say that the ref had a shocker all round.

Which is not like Hayne.

 

[JT_]

It would of taken a century to get him on the ground so to keep the flow of the game Hayne called it.

 

[Tommy Smith]

how can held be called when the bloke was in the air

That's why it was called held.

I personally thought it was a very harsh call. Even though the ref called held, Prior was still being driven backwards in the tackle. So if the defenders aren't going to listen to the held call and be penalised, then why should the ball-carrier be penalised?

It's a stupid interpretation.

 

[Willow]

I think those comments go both ways.

A biased support generally doesn't realise he's being biased. So who's to say your view on this issue is completely neutral?

Can you honestly say that had it been the other way around and Craegh hit Sa, that you would say Creagh should be cited?

Yes Tommy.

 

[SET2JT]

its not like haynes got a loudmouth speaker how the faarrk could he hear the call with 11000 screaming fans

 

[Geohood]

Stupid rule for a penalty, but yes it's a penalty every time.

 

[dragonfire]

Jokes aside, the Roosters were given a fair bit of latitude in the match.

The Sponge thinking that being captain entitled him to whinge more than ever, in between his constant illegal plays in the ruck area (eg foream in the face and the occasional cheap shot).

Btw, has O'Meley completing forgotten how to tackle a bloke facing him? Perhaps he thinks the kidneys is where a player keeps his brains nowadays.

But the actions of Bwaith and Co were not turning points, even Sa's hit on Creagh (as crucial as it was) should not have decided the match. The game was won by Easts defending better when it counted and putting together a better kick and chase game.

Nevertheless, Sa's hit on Creagh was illegal, initially intentional, and ultimately reckless. He should be charged.

When i first saw it i thought it was a definite penalty. Yes Creagh was in support but the inside man was pretty much already tackled. If the boys had the mentality of what we had against Melbourne than Sa would have had his head knocked off by Sailor and probably deserved it

 

[rufus youngblood]

No, he fully intended to tackle a player with the ball. This much we know for sure.

Seems that the subject matter in this thread is upsetting you.

Are you able to stay on topic or are you just here to hijack the thread? Be honest with your answer and we'll see what we can do for you.

Ill be honest willow, your a f**king sook, your bunch of perennial pretenders let you down and you cant cop it.

You lost simple really.

You had numourous chances to score and you didnt

You stick to blaming everything else for the loss but your dumb coach and heartless players including that pussy sauce squirting centre that crapped his pants at the mere sight of soliola.

If you really dont think the ref cost you the game, why bring it up for debate???????

Its funny really, your one-eyed view of the game, all the dragons fans around us were calling hayne your 14th player on the field.

Winners are grinners dickhead

Losers like yourself can please themselves

 

[dragonfire]

to be honest i was disappointed when firstly O'Meley tries to knock Ryles' head off and then that happened

 

[BeeeeeRad]

Originally Posted by Willow
He doesn't score a try until a referee awards it, so its not a try. Blame the ref for not checking with the video ref if you like. As we have seen, referees make mistakes.

FTR, I'm not blaming the referee for the loss.

Ok then wise guy.

Sa ran at Creagh, illegally hit him off the ball, and knocked him out. Rather than look for loopholes, why not simply call it for it what it was?

Sa didn't take him out illegally, as Shane Hayne never blew the whistle and that is the final say.

 

[rufus youngblood]

Jokes aside, the Roosters were given a fair bit of latitude in the match.

The Sponge thinking that being captain entitled him to whinge more than ever, in between his constant illegal plays in the ruck area (eg foream in the face and the occasional cheap shot).

Btw, has O'Meley completing forgotten how to tackle a bloke facing him? Perhaps he thinks the kidneys is where a player keeps his brains nowadays.

But the actions of Bwaith and Co were not turning points, even Sa's hit on Creagh (as crucial as it was) should not have decided the match. The game was won by Easts defending better when it counted and putting together a better kick and chase game.

Nevertheless, Sa's hit on Creagh was illegal, initially intentional, and ultimately reckless. He should be charged.

People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones dickhead, its "completely"

I didnt have to waste to much time finding f**k-ups by you moron.

Look at the first highlighted line and the third, if thats not a

"its not the refs fault but it was" comment i havent seen one.

Lose with dignity dickhead.

How can something be initially intentional, wtf

If i get a gun put it too someones head pull the trigger then drop the gun in amazement.

Would that be initially intentional.

f**king loser

 

[Willow]

Ill be honest willow

I doubt you're capable

your a f**king sook

lol. Compelling argument.

You stick to blaming everything else for the loss

OK Einstein, show me where I have said the hit on Creagh was the reason for the loss. In fact, I have said the opposite and was pretty clear on why I thought Easts won the game.

Have you got the balls to admit that you got that wrong as well?

Winners are grinners dickhead

Sure Chuckles, you seem to seem to be one happy chappy.

Tommy,
I will agree with you that rufus youngblood does indeed have the combo of ignorance and bias wrapped up. He wears it like a badge. lol

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

This thread has me baffled

To me it looked like the ball carrier (was it Rogers?) took the ball right to the line and Creagh went with him. He came to Sa who hit him on suspicion and there was a headclash.

Play out a similar scenario 100 times and the defender will tackle the support player 100 times. You can say that technically you can't tackle a player without the ball, but when you play that flat it's simply ridiculous to make that assertion. Defenders always take out support players AT THE LINE (i.e. after the point where they would theoretically have received the ball had it been passed) simply because it's not practical not to. If a support player gets to the line and the ball-player is considering passing to him, you can't wait and see whether or not he has the ball- he'll be through the line before you've figured out whether or not he's got it.

I don't understand how it was anything other than a headclash, Sa went down holding his head, a headclash for all money.

Nothing in it at all.

 

[Willow]

Ok then wise guy.

Another one who is having trouble sticking with the facts.

Where did I say the try should not have been awarded? I didn't.

The try was not awarded, we'll never know for sure because the ref didn't go for the replay. You won the game, get over it.

More to the point: The no-try is irrelevant to the result, the Match Review Committee is relevant to what happens post-match. Now think about that...

Sa didn't take him out illegally, as Shane Hayne never blew the whistle and that is the final say.

When a player is tackled without the ball, it is illegal. Keep looking for loopholes if you like but the tape is pretty conclusive.

 

[Willow]

People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones dickhead, its "completely"

I didnt have to waste to much time finding f**k-ups by you moron.

Look at the first highlighted line and the third, if thats not a

"its not the refs fault but it was" comment i havent seen one.

Lose with dignity dickhead.

How can something be initially intentional, wtf

If i get a gun put it too someones head pull the trigger then drop the gun in amazement.

Would that be initially intentional.

f**king loser

Saturday night post. This is what happens when you mix keyboard heroics with the evil amber liquid.

I'm there for you young rufus.

 

[Willow]

This thread has me baffled

To me it looked like the ball carrier (was it Rogers?) took the ball right to the line and Creagh went with him. He came to Soliola who hit him on suspicion and there was a headclash.

Actually it was a side swipe and there was very little head contact. Creagh actually tipped up (literally knocked off his feet) and his head hit the ground first. I'm of the view that this was when he was knocked out.

I don't understand how it was anything other than a headclash, Sa went down holding his head, a headclash for all money.

Sa was holding his head afterwards because he copped a stray boot when he went to ground.

Watch it again if you have the tape.

 

[BeeeeeRad]

When a player is tackled without the ball, it is illegal. Keep looking for loopholes if you like but the tape is pretty conclusive.

If you had have read the whole thread I actually agreed it should have been a penalty as he did tackle a player without the ball. But the way you lot are carrying on like he has king hit someone or something is just ridiculous and I completely disagree with you on that one.

The way I saw it (yes throught by red and blue eyes) was that he was lining up a potential ball runner and was expecting th pass to be thrown but it never was (can't remember if he threw a dummy). This means that it should be a penalty for tackling the player without the ball, but nothing futher as Sa's intentions weren't to take Creagh out and hurt him. It was an unfortunate event, especially that it happened to a key player of yours.

BTW it was a great game thanks Drags', was awesome listening to both team's chants on tv also, so kudos to the Chook pen and the army for getting out there in those conditions.

 

[rufus youngblood]

Saturday night post. This is what happens when you mix keyboard heroics with the evil amber liquid.

I'm there for you young rufus.

f**k your a pretender

just like the team you follow

no need to argue anymore, you have been defeated and shown up to be the dick everyone has come to love.

enjoy olympic park

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Actually it was a side swipe and there was very little head contact. Creagh actually tipped up (literally knocked off his feet) and his head hit the ground first. I'm of the view that this was when he was knocked out.Sa was holding his head afterwards because he copped a stray boot when he went to ground.

Watch it again if you have the tape.

I saw it several times already but I'll take your word for it

Regardless I think you're silly to be arguing this point according to the letter of the law. The law of reality is that the "never tackle a man without the ball" rule is ridiculous in some situations, and hence is pretty much never policed in situations like this one. I applaud the video ref and ref for showing common sense.

 

[Willow]

If you had have read the whole thread I actually agreed it should have been a penalty as he did tackle a player without the ball.

I did, and was a little at a loss why you started arguing semantics over an unrelated incident in trying to justify Sa's hit on Creagh.

But the way you lot are carrying on like he has king hit someone or something is just ridiculous and I completely disagree with you on that one.

You seem to be a little defensive about this. Don't take this the wrong way, but are 'you lot' normally used to forums where opposing opinion is taboo?