08 :: R8 Sat :: Panthers 18 Eels 26 @ CUA

[mxlegend99]

How can some Eels fans seriously think they were helped over the line with BIG decisions favoring them?

Their first penalty came when we were on the attack, for "stepping off the mark" and yet he barely moved a foot. Every play the ball has the same movement, and Eels got a penalty when we were attacking their line for this. Ben Cummins saved them there.

Then there is the Nathan Smith no try... the second worst decision in the game. He wasn't held up... he was tackled and landed on his chest with the ball touching the ground and slid over the line... with his arm never leaving the ground. That was a BOTD try at the very least... but i still can't see how it would have ANY form of doubt whatsoever.

Then there's the length of the field try called back. Michael Gordon makes a break, we run 100m to score a brilliant try and the referee calls it back to our 20 metre line... the referee didn't rule that he was inside his own goal line until we scored a try. Had we been tackled, he probably would have made us take a dropout. It just took him about 30 seconds to figure what course of action would hurt Panthers most, and help the Eels out.

There is also Nathan Hindmarsh kicking the ball as we were playing it... and rather then us getting a penalty, Eels got a scrum. So we were deprived of possession, and forced to defend when we should have gotten a free 30m kick and been attacking their line.

And ofcourse Brett Finch passing from the ground after the tackle was complete, for the Eels to go and score. I'm 99% certain he was on the ground when he threw that... it should have been looked at more closely. considering that it led to a try.

The halftime score should have been 20 to 6 in favour of the Panthers, with the length of the field try just after halftime giving us a 26 to 6 lead. Those 2 disallowed tries killed the team, and changed the momentum of the game.

 

[mxlegend99]

Also, that Hauraki try should have been a Panthers penalty. He was on the ground, momentum had stopped and the tackle had been made. He jumped back up to break free of the tackle and ground the ball... not a double movement, he made a play AFTER being tackled. Wesser didn't fall of the tackle, it was definitely complete.

 

[scottyeel]

How can some Eels fans seriously think they were helped over the line with BIG decisions favoring them?

Their first penalty came when we were on the attack, for "stepping off the mark" and yet he barely moved a foot. Every play the ball has the same movement, and Eels got a penalty when we were attacking their line for this. Ben Cummins saved them there.

Lol, He walked about 3 metres sideways. About time someone got pinged for that.

Then there is the Nathan Smith no try... the second worst decision in the game. He wasn't held up... he was tackled and landed on his chest with the ball touching the ground and slid over the line... with his arm never leaving the ground. That was a BOTD try at the very least... but i still can't see how it would have ANY form of doubt whatsoever.

I never saw the ball grounded, no replay did either.

Then there's the length of the field try called back. Michael Gordon makes a break, we run 100m to score a brilliant try and the referee calls it back to our 20 metre line... the referee didn't rule that he was inside his own goal line until we scored a try. Had we been tackled, he probably would have made us take a dropout. It just took him about 30 seconds to figure what course of action would hurt Panthers most, and help the Eels out

Lol,he blew the whistle nearly straight away, rules are rules.

There is also Nathan Hindmarsh kicking the ball as we were playing it... and rather then us getting a penalty, Eels got a scrum. So we were deprived of possession, and forced to defend when we should have gotten a free 30m kick and been attacking their line.

50/50 call that probably should have went your way.

And ofcourse Brett Finch passing from the ground after the tackle was complete, for the Eels to go and score. I'm 99% certain he was on the ground when he threw that... it should have been looked at more closely. considering that it led to a try.

99% sure? Didn't you want benefit of the doubt for Smith.

The halftime score should have been 20 to 6 in favour of the Panthers, with the length of the field try just after halftime giving us a 26 to 6 lead

The game could have been over at half time if the panthers were good enough to finish off the breaks they made. But they weren't.

Those 2 disallowed tries killed the team, and changed the momentum of the game

Lol, their missed tackles, poor defence and piss poor kicking game in the 2nd half lost them that game..

:lol:

 

[scottyeel]

Also, that Hauraki try should have been a Panthers penalty. He was on the ground, momentum had stopped and the tackle had been made. He jumped back up to break free of the tackle and ground the ball... not a double movement, he made a play AFTER being tackled. Wesser didn't fall of the tackle, it was definitely complete.

No one had hold of him, he was never tackled.
But let me guess, Petero's was fine.:lol:

 

[Caged Panther]

There were some absolutetly disgraceful refereeing decisions last night that directly cost us the game in my opinion and that's not even taking into account all the indirect sh*t that happens in a players head when they lose their momentum in the game the way we lost it because of those poor refereeing decisions.

 

[Timmah]

Second half burst gets Eels the win​

18-26

​

The Parramatta Eels have scored 20 second half points to defeat the Penrith Panthers 26-18 at CUA Stadium tonight. The Panthers led 14-6 at half time, but were unable to stop the surging Eels in the second half.​

The Eels opened the scoring in the 10th minute with Daniel Wagon strolling across for an easy try. The Panthers responded quickly with Petero Civoniceva being awarded a try after a million looks from the video referee. The Penrith side took the lead with Tony Puletua scoring while standing in the centres. The only other scoring the first half was a penalty goal after an Eels short drop-out failed to go the 10 metres.
Read on here for the full match report​

Match Details
Round 8 :: Saturday 3 May 2008, 7:30pm
CUA Stadium Penrith
Referee: Ben Cummins
Crowd: 18,724
Halftime: Panthers 14-6​

Penrith Panthers 18
Tries: Petero Civoniceva, Tony Puletua, Michael Jennings
Goals: Jarrod Sammut (3/4)​

Parramatta Eels 26
Tries: Daniel Wagon, Nathan Hindmarsh, Feleti Mateo, Weller Hauraki, Joel Reddy
Goals: Luke Burt (3/5)​

 

[Caged Panther]

on the walking off the mark 3 meters, yes it's a rule yes they may be entitled to penalise us for it, but when was the last time you saw it penalised?

It's called consistency and inconsistency in the decisions made by referees is far more frustrating for mine than plain bad decisions. It was almost as ridiculous penalty as the one we got against us at some point last year for a foward pass.

 

[abpanther]

I thought some of the decisions were pathetic.

The Smith no try was terrible, the replay showed the ball grounded about one metre out and then he slid over with no change in his body position, the ref had no idea so he sends it up to the video ref who has no conclusive video evidence, how that is not BOTD I have no idea.

The Hindmarsh non-penalty was clear as crystal, they reviewed it and still got it wrong, amazing.

The Tighe penalty was a mystery to me, never seen someone penalised for that before.

The Hindmarsh try was the worst one of all though, firstly Hayne played the ball not even standing up properly and then Finch gets tackled and is on the ground for at least two seconds before he passes the ball, how that is not donw by contact I have no idea.

Having said all that I think the Panthers deserved to lose with their poor ruck defense in the second half and our halves were terrible, Blair is a lock and Sammut is not a first grade halfback, we will struggle with these two.

 

[Dutchy]

I never saw the ball grounded, no replay did either.

No replay showed that it wasn't grounded. Therefore should be Benefit Of The Doubt.

Lol,he blew the whistle nearly straight away, rules are rules.

One foot in the goal and the other in the field of play. When jumping and landing, you see that every game, the player is normally not good enough to get away and then tackled into the in goal with a drop out occurring. Should have been play on.


That is a rule that needs to be looked at also. Catching the ball in your own in goal shouldn't mean every time it goes out to the twenty. It should be optional, because the off chance that there is opportunity to play on and better your position should be taken and not having your team punished for good football.

 

[Caged Panther]

Having said all that I think the Panthers deserved to lose with their poor ruck defense in the second half and our halves were terrible, Blair is a lock and Sammut is not a first grade halfback, we will struggle with these two.

I think this comes back to the point I was trying to make about how bad refereeing decisions can affect the mentality of a player out on the field.

In that respect we reacted very poorly when things were against us and it's something we need to work on.

 

[Y2Eel]

No replay showed that it wasn't grounded. Therefore should be Benefit Of The Doubt.



One foot in the goal and the other in the field of play. When jumping and landing, you see that every game, the player is normally not good enough to get away and then tackled into the in goal with a drop out occurring. Should have been play on.


That is a rule that needs to be looked at also. Catching the ball in your own in goal shouldn't mean every time it goes out to the twenty. It should be optional, because the off chance that there is opportunity to play on and better your position should be taken and not having your team punished for good football.

First of all how do you know the ref wasnt going up stairs to see if the Video ref saw it differently to him?? you see it at least 4-5 times a season the exact same thing...

How doy uo judge when it should be optional?? when they player catches it in his in goal and makes good ground? what about the times he thinks he can make a good run after catching it in his in goal then get tackled in side the in goal do they say nah he took it on the full take it to the twenty??

 

[Timmah]

Seriously dude, you won, and in effect got the rub of the green with the ref. Be gracious - you know your side was better in the second half but Penrith were getting the harsh end of the stick. Why not leave it at that, eh?

 

[Y2Eel]

Seriously dude, you won, and in effect got the rub of the green with the ref. Be gracious - you know your side was better in the second half but Penrith were getting the harsh end of the stick. Why not leave it at that, eh?

Gracious WTF i am just telling it as how the refs see it thats all numbskull

Penrith Got terrible calls especially when Hindmarsh's boot kicked the ball out on the play the ball and the walking of the marl penalty..

Note for anyone on a forum have your say and leave it at that cos if you dont timtam will come after you...

Dude, who says that?

 

[scottyeel]

Seriously dude, you won, and in effect got the rub of the green with the ref. Be gracious - you know your side was better in the second half but Penrith were getting the harsh end of the stick. Why not leave it at that, eh?

Lol, Forum cop!:lol:

 

[gunnamatta bay]

I DON'T condone bottles being thrown, vicious name calling might have sufficed. But it shouldn't get physical as much as metaphorically I'd like to strangle Ben Cummins.

don't know how accurate the report is but the sunday telegraph is saying the guy was only ejected by police. why didn't they charge him?

 

[Timmah]

Lol, Forum cop!:lol:

How the f**k is that forum copping? I'm attacking his opinion because I disagree with it. He's entitled to return serve which he has - everyone's got that right. You on the other hand should fugg off and play the ball, not the man.

 

[scottyeel]

Why not leave it at that, eh?

Is that attacking his opinion or asking him not to express it anymore.
Fugg Off Forum cop

 

[Y2Eel]

How the f**k is that forum copping? I'm attacking his opinion because I disagree with it. He's entitled to return serve which he has - everyone's got that right. You on the other hand should fugg off and play the ball, not the man.

Is that attacking his opinion or asking him not to express it anymore.
Fugg Off Forum cop

:lol::lol:

 

[hineyrulz]

Penrith got the worst of the calls last night but he was poor for both sides, how do these pelicans keep their spots week after week of sh*thouse performances????.

 

[Bazal]

:lol::lol: Panthers fans....almost as bad as Raiders fans. Cummins was terrible in general and should be dropped, but it was your sides inability to go with Parra when they kicked up a gear that cost you the game, not him.

The Smith no try-Called held up on advice from the touchie, who told the ref he had been held up. Correct call...can anyone seriously say even after all those replays that he definitely scored? I doubt it. Benefit of the doubt be damned, the touchie had a better view than the ref and said it was held up, and the ref made the call accordingly.

The 20m restart-He caught the ball in goal, what the f**k do you want the ref to do, ignore the rules when it suits you? LOL. Perhaps the rule itself needs to be looked at....but there was nothing Cummins could have done.

Finch was tackled, eh? They must have changed the definition of a completed tackle to "as soon as the defence grabs him" when I wasn't looking.

Suck it up...you lost. That's what happens when you have terrible halves and a useless backline, and miss tackles against a side that can score points from anywhere.