09 :: R11 Sun :: Titans 18 Sea Eagles 17 @ Skilled

[effnic]

Bahahah

And look who walks in right on cue ahahhahaha

 

[renouf]

False. Shoulder to shoulder contest orford got to the ball first and campbell fell over him. He did drop it so it would have been titans feed in the scrum which they may have got a field-goal/scored a try from who knows instead of a match-stealing penalty.

Nah, it as more then just a shoulder to shoulder contest, like I said, Orford knew what he was doing. He put that little bit extra in the 'shoulder to shoulder' and denied Campbell the opportunity to grab the ball.

 

[Country Bronco]

I was at the game myself and this all happened in front of me and to be honest at the time I thought it was two players contesting for the ball and nothing else. Yet orford had clearly knocked on and I was expecting a scrumfeed to the Titans. When the penalty was awarded I thought it was for backchat and not tackling the player without the ball. A Titans female supporter next to me said 'what's going on?' to which i replied you've just been given the game. It was disappointing to me for such a fine spectacle of a game to come down to one lousy decision by officials but that seems to happen every week in the nrl. As a bronco supporter I've been on both sides of the fence with controversy like this. And the savouring factor is 'What goes around, comes around'.

 

[kia ora storm]

That penalty was a joke...tackling the player ??.

 

[gong_eagle]

I was at the game myself and this all happened in front of me and to be honest at the time I thought it was two players contesting for the ball and nothing else. Yet orford had clearly knocked on and I was expecting a scrumfeed to the Titans. When the penalty was awarded I thought it was for backchat and not tackling the player without the ball. A Titans female supporter next to me said 'what's going on?' to which i replied you've just been given the game. It was disappointing to me for such a fine spectacle of a game to come down to one lousy decision by officials but that seems to happen every week in the nrl. As a bronco supporter I've been on both sides of the fence with controversy like this. And the savouring factor is 'What goes around, comes around'.

good post

 

[Noa]

good post

No its not, it was a penalty. Sure Orford hit him with the shoulder, but the angle he came at wasnt acute enough to be considered shoulder to shoulder.

 

[Country Bronco]

No its not, it was a penalty. Sure Orford hit him with the shoulder, but the angle he came at wasnt acute enough to be considered shoulder to shoulder.

The penalty was awarded for tackling the player without the ball and at no stage did orford commit himself to tackling campbell. They merely clashed paths which I thought was acceptable considering both players were competing for the ball and not the player.

 

[Noa]

The penalty was awarded for tackling the player without the ball and at no stage did orford commit himself to tackling campbell. They merely clashed paths which I thought was acceptable considering both players were competing for the ball and not the player.

Like I said, it was the angle he came in at which sealed Manlys fate. You cant cut across some-ones running line like that and claim it was shoulder to shoulder.

That is only feasible when the players are running side by side. What Orford did was your basic hip & shoulder

 

[Country Bronco]

Like I said, it was the angle he came in at which sealed Manlys fate. You cant cut across some-ones running line like that and claim it was shoulder to shoulder.

That is only feasible when the players are running side by side. What Orford did was your basic hip & shoulder

The referee in question thought at the time that Campbells legs were taken out. This clearly wasn't the case. The hip shoulder contact wouldn't have caused this unless preston was in the air or seven foot ten tall.

After the game preston said he was expecting a scrum, nathan friend said sometimes you' re on the wrong side of a decision and john cartwright said that it was harsh and said a decision went against the titans the week before. Matt Cecchin said he makes the decision on the spot without help of a replay he gets some wrong some right. Thats all points of view on the matter and they all point in the same direction.

I've never stated that manly should have won the game or the titans deserved to lose. Titans would of had a chance from a scrum anyway if things were up to me. Anything could of happened from there.

 

[cupid]

Like I said, it was the angle he came in at which sealed Manlys fate. You cant cut across some-ones running line like that and claim it was shoulder to shoulder.

That is only feasible when the players are running side by side. What Orford did was your basic hip & shoulder

WTF? Try reading your post again and just see how stupid you sound. Running in at angle to collect the ball, since when the f*** has that been illegal.

 

[Country Bronco]

WTF? Try reading your post again and just see how stupid you sound. Running in at angle to collect the ball, since when the f*** has that been illegal.

He's saying that orford was taking out Campbell with a hip and shoulder and the angle he came from didn't constitute a fair shoulder to shoulder run for the ball. I don't agree but he has a right to his opinon.

 

[bileduct]

The penalty was awarded for tackling the player without the ball and at no stage did orford commit himself to tackling campbell. They merely clashed paths which I thought was acceptable considering both players were competing for the ball and not the player.

Utter, utter bullsh*t.

Orford wasn't even looking at the ball prior to tackling Campbell.

Good call from the referee.

 

[gong_eagle]

Preston Campbell has officially said Chechin got it wrong, and that he felt his own win was a bit hollow, and that he felt for Manly fans and players.

 

[Tommax25]

Nah, it as more then just a shoulder to shoulder contest, like I said, Orford knew what he was doing. He put that little bit extra in the 'shoulder to shoulder' and denied Campbell the opportunity to grab the ball.

I would agree it should have been a penalty if the rule was zero contact with chasers on the chase for the ball but the fact that players are allowed to jostle shoudler to shoulder for the ball means it was a ridiculous penalty. You say he put that little bit extra in the shoulder to shoulder, and make out as if this is why it is worthy of the penalty. What is shoulder to shoulder if not attempting to shoulder someone away from the ball, with force? Shoulder to shoulder does not mean that players shoulders may touch but no force be applied, it means if you arent grabbing, pulling, tripping ect a player in pursuit of the ball then you can use your strength to gain an advantage in the chase. That "little bit extra" orford put in was worthy of commendation for his effort to stop the try and certainly not of penalty.