Gould at His Best

[Packy]

His hand was never separated form the ball and that is the criteria for possession these days. How do you know that he would of knocked it on, maybe he might have tapped it up to himself… you don’t know.

Are you seriously suggesting that the pass ruled forward against Anasta was indeed forward? It was a metre backwards and the ball was caught behind where it was thrown from.

The one from Carney to Anasta in the 1st half was clearly forward and I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

I honestly believe that at the speed which Anasta's arm hit teh ball which then (immediately after) hit Kimmorley was enough to justify my comments. Anasta would have had separation from the ball. It isn't about criteria for possession. He would not have retained the ball if not for the opposing body.

 

[Rockin Ronny]

How the f**k can the Roosters complain when they were carried home against the Rabbitohs last week?

That last penalty was an example of a referee looking for a reason to blow a penalty. Nothing short of fraud.

I think Easts and Politis are the new Manly and Arko of the game.

 

[adamkungl]

How the f**k can the Roosters complain when they were carried home against the Rabbitohs last week?

That last penalty was an example of a referee looking for a reason to blow a penalty. Nothing short of fraud.

I think Easts and Politis are the new Manly and Arko of the game.

Souffs were only ever leading that game thanks to the refs

 

[Timmah]

- The Anasta/Kimmorley no try – IMO the ball was never separated from his hand so how can a knock on be called? Additionally a no try decision is made when it is a DEFINATE no try, this was 50/50 at best and as far as I knew benefit of the doubt goes to the attack. How many times have we seen tries where the attacker has got a fingernail on the ball constituting a “put down”….

lol, how can anyone think the Anasta no try was the right call. Deadset, was woeful from the video ref.

His hand was never separated form the ball and that is the criteria for possession these days. How do you know that he would of knocked it on, maybe he might have tapped it up to himself… you don’t know.

Completely 100% wrong on all counts. Kimmorley knocked on into Anasta who knocked on into him, there was separation whether you like it or not. No try, correct ruling, end of story.

 

[adamkungl]

Tim said 'end of story' guys, so lets just wrap it up there eh...

 

[eelandia]

You need to extend your Gould hate to the ABC callers as well. I was listening to the game and they were livid at some of the calls. They too went on and on about them so I presumed it must have been bad. At the end they claimed the better team won.

I didn't see the game, only listened.

****

 

[Scott]

Nothing wrong with yesterday's call in my eyes.
He may not be everyone's cup of tea, I actually enjoy listening to him, and also the banter between him and Rabs.

Here's an idea though, if you don't like him, either put it on mute or turn your f**king TV off!

 

[Big Pete]

Agree with Tim.

Anasta's right arm knocks the ball into Kimmorley before regathering it and knocking it in between his thighs. No try any day of the week.

 

[Timmah]

Tim said 'end of story' guys, so lets just wrap it up there eh...

:lol: your fans and anyone who disagrees can argue til they're blue in the face, but the call was 100% completely correct without a shadow of a doubt. No try, no reason to whinge, especially given you F**KING WON.

 

[madunit]

They haven't even televised the game in Vic yet, so quit your f**king bitching!

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

How the f**k can the Roosters complain when they were carried home against the Rabbitohs last week?

That last penalty was an example of a referee looking for a reason to blow a penalty. Nothing short of fraud.

I think Easts and Politis are the new Manly and Arko of the game.

If it wasn't for a disgraceful touchjudge decision in the first half it would never even have mattered. Only the toofless metho swilling dole bludging homeless Souffs fans are stupid enough to complain and the corporation who are paying the referees and printing the articles.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

How the f**k can the Roosters complain when they were carried home against the Rabbitohs last week?

That last penalty was an example of a referee looking for a reason to blow a penalty. Nothing short of fraud.

I think Easts and Politis are the new Manly and Arko of the game.

No doubt.. I mean the refs obviously love us.. We have won 2 penalty counts all year and 10 in the past 3 seasons... As Braith said yesterday.. join the dots.. the NRL use the salary cap and the referees as a handicap in this competition.

 

[no name]

I didnt see the game yesterday but you can usually tell who Gus has put money on.

His constant whinging about referees decisions is a bad thing for the game. The casual observer watching a game with Gus carrying on like he does would make them think "What a stupid game, no one knows what the rules are"
Especially when Gus does his "i know the pass was forward but let them play on" line when a team he has backed is denied a try and Vossy pulls him up.
Criticism of the refs, admin etc should be reserved for the roast where your true league fan tunes in.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Haven't watched it but I heard about his 32fps comments on the Noddy/Anasta no-try incident. Facts are facts and the try was correctly denied. He needs to calm down a bit and not act like the sky is falling. Otherwise, he's a great analyst of the game.

Bugger Gus. Sterlo (not a chook fan) himself said that there were enough replays shown to justify a 'benefit of the doubt' try to Anasta.

 

[I bleed blue & gold]

Agree with Tim.

Anasta's right arm knocks the ball into Kimmorley before regathering it and knocking it in between his thighs. No try any day of the week.

Exactly.

 

[Timmah]

Bugger Gus. Sterlo (not a chook fan) himself said that there were enough replays shown to justify a 'benefit of the doubt' try to Anasta.

I managed to catch both ABC and 2GB discussions on the event and both stations were in agreeance it was the correct decision.

Just because Sterlo says so, doesn't make it right.

 

[Chook Norris]

I managed to catch both ABC and 2GB discussions on the event and both stations were in agreeance it was the correct decision.

Just because Sterlo says so, doesn't make it right.

But the LU writer said it was a try :sarcasm:

Not long after that, the Roosters took the match by the scruff of the neck, totally dominating territory and possession.

It looked as though the Roosters had pulled the score back through Braith Anasta, only for it to be disallowed by the video referee in a decision that was flat out wrong.

The Bulldogs were able to get some field position, but wasted it by poor errors late in the tackle count.

http://www.leagueunlimited.com/article.php?newsid=19599

 

[adamkungl]

But the LU writer said it was a try :sarcasm:



http://www.leagueunlimited.com/article.php?newsid=19599

But only the sources that agree with Tim are valid.

 

[Timmah]

The LU writer has been in this thread, he's no different to anyone else debating it.

Which is really quite silly anyway. There is no way possible it was a try. It is a fact, it happened, it was correct, and it cannot be changed. The fact that over 24 hours later you're still arguing it despite having won is incredibly funny.

 

[LRC]

Who cares..the rule should be that the benefit of the doubt should go to the defence on kicks.
Probably could easily have been given based on the rule as it is.
Did it deserve a try...not really...was a crap kick.
Could have got a penalty for impedence in the chase maybe.
But roosters were getting some crucial bad calls...

However, thats no excuse for letting in so many soft tries.