What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Widdop "Try"

Owen Da Saints

Juniors
Messages
1,329
EDIT : If anything, DCE was trying to disrupt the defensive line.
He was more worried about upsetting the dragons player than helping his team get out of trouble.
Anyway,Dragons scored 5 other trys to win by 25 points !
 
Last edited:

carcharias

Immortal
Messages
43,120
If anything, DCE was trying to stop a quick play the ball/ interfere in the attack from an offside position !
He should have been more focused on stopping a try legally by trying to get back in defenders.
Instead he went even more offside voluntarily!
Anyway,Dragons scored 5 other trys to win by 25 points !

DCE was trying to stop a Quick play the ball?
His team had the ball.

I actually think he thought nightingale was going to be passed the ball and went in to tackle .
But I think they put a kick in instead
Meanwhile nightingale hung onto him after DCE made contact.
 

wibble

Bench
Messages
4,661
I think it was a 50/50
Probably did impact the chances of DCE getting into dummy half
But it also looked like he was as much to blame as nightingale

My problem is how the bunker can't make a call on that???
Huh ???
So they can disallow a try because a player 50 metres away from the play is slightly in front of a the kicker, but they can't make a call on this shit.

The game is geniused with rules made by geniuss.

And this is the issue.

If they had looked at the Nightingale / DCE scuffle, it quite possibly would have been a try still. But they didn't even look at it.

According to the NRL they got it right, because they followed protocol by not going back to the previous play.

Huh indeed! How is something affecting the play the ball deemed as the "previous" play?

It wasn't at the location of the play the ball (which was kind of DCE's point...) but it was an issue about a player getting to marker.

If the person playing the ball pushes the marker over, doesn't get penalised for some inexplicable reason (because NRL), then plays the ball, and a try is scored by the dummy half straight over the top of the downed marker, I assume this also can't be ruled on, by the same logic.

What a great look that will be for the NRL if that happens...
 

Owen Da Saints

Juniors
Messages
1,329
DCE was trying to stop a Quick play the ball?
His team had the ball.

I actually think he thought nightingale was going to be passed the ball and went in to tackle .
But I think they put a kick in instead
Meanwhile nightingale hung onto him after DCE made contact.
Sorry,
I was trying to say he was interfering with dragons player more than the dragons player interfering with him.
Can't deny DCE initiated it.
It wasn't Nightingales fault.
 

Owen Da Saints

Juniors
Messages
1,329
DCE was trying to stop a Quick play the ball?
His team had the ball.

I actually think he thought nightingale was going to be passed the ball and went in to tackle .
But I think they put a kick in instead
Meanwhile nightingale hung onto him after DCE made contact.
Anyway, if he was trying to tackle nightingale, he was doing it from an offside position then.
 

wibble

Bench
Messages
4,661
If you were playing a team that you just can't crack (like Melbourne), it might be worth a sneaky attempt to take out the marker before you play the ball, trying to get a barge over try. If the on field ref doesn't see it, you're good to go...
 

_Johnsy

Referee
Messages
27,270
If DCE does not initiate contact (as he did) we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is so Manly, to be more concerned about creating drama, than being focused on getting where you need to be & get your job done. This sums up the differ nice between both sides performance on the weekend.
 

muzby

Village Idiot
Staff member
Messages
45,708
Not only did DCE initiate contact, you watch him giving Nightingale a stare down after they'd both let go of each other..

If he hadn't done that whole gangsta stare, he would have been in place to pick up the ball.
 

wibble

Bench
Messages
4,661
It was awarded a try, and all you merkins can do is whinge about it. Enjoy.

I get that decisions are viewed as "supporting" one team and "penalising" another, and become part of the banter that fans sledge each other with. I like a good lol@Manly as much as anyone, and I thought The Mad Hatter's anecdote was very funny, but....

Ch 9 footy show confirm DCE instigated it and that try was correct decision.

If DCE does not initiate contact (as he did) we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is so Manly, to be more concerned about creating drama, than being focused on getting where you need to be & get your job done. This sums up the differ nice between both sides performance on the weekend.

Not only did DCE initiate contact, you watch him giving Nightingale a stare down after they'd both let go of each other..

If he hadn't done that whole gangsta stare, he would have been in place to pick up the ball.

... none of the banter, or serious support for the decision, actually gets to the crux of the problem. Take the teams out of the context, are we really happy that things that happen to affect a marker (who by definition is getting in place for the upcoming play, not hanging around from the previous play) are not examinable if they happen before the play the ball? That seems a ludicrous position from the NRL.
 

Stagger Lee

Bench
Messages
4,931
Not only did DCE initiate contact, you watch him giving Nightingale a stare down after they'd both let go of each other..

If he hadn't done that whole gangsta stare, he would have been in place to pick up the ball.

DCE giving a gangsta stare =

785b38f3243a944844a77d084e77e539.jpg
 

myrrh ken

First Grade
Messages
9,817
... none of the banter, or serious support for the decision, actually gets to the crux of the problem. Take the teams out of the context, are we really happy that things that happen to affect a marker (who by definition is getting in place for the upcoming play, not hanging around from the previous play) are not examinable if they happen before the play the ball? That seems a ludicrous position from the NRL.

Same situation as last year re Roberts kicking one of the markers during the play the ball. No action on field. Try the next play. Roberts got a holiday on match review.

Yeah they could probably extend the bunker's review to include the play the ball. But there's got to be a limit somewhere.
 

kit66

Bench
Messages
3,578
I think it was a 50/50
Probably did impact the chances of DCE getting into dummy half
But it also looked like he was as much to blame as nightingale

My problem is how the bunker can't make a call on that???
Huh ???
So they can disallow a try because a player 50 metres away from the play is slightly in front of a the kicker, but they can't make a call on this shit.

The game is geniused with rules made by geniuss.

In the situation you describe the ball is in play, so yeah, of course they can go back and look at it. In the DCE derpfest situation the ball wasn't in play, bunker couldn't rule on it.
Nightingale was running to get back to his defensive position and there is no onus on him to get out of DCE's way, none at all. Technically DCE is off - side and in the opposition defensive line and should be doing his best not to interfere with any Dragons player. Any day of the week a player running to get back on side is not allowed to interfere with an opposition player.
 

carcharias

Immortal
Messages
43,120
In the situation you describe the ball is in play, so yeah, of course they can go back and look at it. In the DCE derpfest situation the ball wasn't in play, bunker couldn't rule on it.
Nightingale was running to get back to his defensive position and there is no onus on him to get out of DCE's way, none at all. Technically DCE is off - side and in the opposition defensive line and should be doing his best not to interfere with any Dragons player. Any day of the week a player running to get back on side is not allowed to interfere with an opposition player.

I've looked at again
Nightingale was lucky to get away with that.
I think the first collision was accidental by both players.
Then nightingale holds DCE back
 
Top