09 :: R21 Sun :: Rabbitohs 18 Bulldogs 26 @ ANZ

[ouwet]

LOL @ Bulldogs fans whinging about the referee. They got pretty much all the 50/50 calls in that match.

Idris getting a penalty for being 'pushed' in the back by Talanoa. Try to Morris next set.

Colin Best getting pinged for throwing the ball out when it clearly came off El Masri.

Penalty against Best for hands in the play the ball when Warburton just dropped it.

El Masri knocking the ball forward to Sutton before throwing it stupidly to Best - El Masri try - not sent upstairs.

The call against Issac Luke for knocking on when he hit Ennis on the arm, forcing the ball loose. Sandow was in the clear.

Look, the Bulldogs bashed us out of the game in the 2nd half, so well done to them. Just stop whinging about the ref!

:lol: El Masri hit it backforwards (As you can clearly see by his arm movement)... Issac Luke hit the ball (Look at the reply again)...

You guys got a try from a clear sheppard... Got a penalty because Sandow is a sook and couldn't handle himself... Overall both teams had some dud calls.

I still couldn't believe Goodwins try was "Benefit of the doubt"... There was NO doubt it was a try, they looked at it for 2 minutes almost as if they were trying to find a way to disallow it!

 

[Moe]

Great day, great game.

Souths came out firing and got us on the back foot. I took us a while to get going, but once we did there was no going back.

Well done to souths too, they played a very attacking game, unfortunate this form hasn't been around all year.

As for the Bulldogs, we are playing no where near our best but still winning. we need to start hitting form before the final series.

Good signs ahead, hopefully

 

[jimmythehand]

shocking post yobbo.

Not to mention the corrections others have posted:

Idris was pushed in the back.

The penalty Warburton got was no worse than the penalty Luke got for running into Kimmorley at the play the ball and pretending to fall over.

I thought Luke got the ball, and even if he didn't they've been given as knock-ons all year. How the hell is the referee going to be able to tell if he missed the ball by a couple of centimetres or not? I've seen Ennis do the same thing 3-4 times this year, and every time it's been called a knock-on against him. Finally the referees are making consistent calls in a particular area and people are complaining they're wrong. ffs

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

Definitely one that Souths lost. Bombed a couple of certain tries and handed a couple of "gifts" to the Dogs.

 

[Bulldogs_4_Life]

1 gift try. That is it. Apart from that, we out played you. The better team won. But I'll let you hang onto the "we lost it" crap if it makes you feel better.

 

[Timmah]

Our muscle in defence in the second half won the game, nothing to do with "gifts" apart from the try assist from John Sutton to El Masri. Your men simply ran out of legs to carry you I think. Taylor needs to look at how he uses his interchange IMO, your mob seem to run out of steam at the end of big games.

 

[Bumble]

Josh Morris was forced to go for the decoy runner. Now I'm not saying decoy runners are bad or that they shouldn't be there, but the fact that Sandow took advantage of the gap created by the decoy runner making Morris come in to attempt a tackle on him is against the rules.

You might say "well that's just a good decoy run" but it isn't because Morris was watching the man with the ball. He then dummied to the "decoy" and then blatantly ran behind him. Morris should never have had to make the decision to tackle the runner. It's a clear sheppard. It's why the rule was introduced. If Sandow had passed the ball it would have been fine. But as Gus said, it's in the rule book as clear as day - You can not run behind your own player to gain an advantage.

All we want is consistency and it seems so many obstruction and sheppard laws come into play all season, yet when a perect example of an actual sheppard happens they give it a try. That's consistency of an NRL standard for you.

Oh well, it's over with now. That's my opinion but what's done is done I guess.

How the f**k is that against the rules? The entire point of decoy runners is to confuse the defender. He didn't impede Morris from tackling Sandow in any way.

As I said, your interpretation of an obstruction is laughably bad.

And your other posts just say to me that you have no idea on anything, really.

You say that "What Ennis does works..." We got the penalty.

You say "Souths can be proud of their effort" and "A great game from both teams" then a few posts later say "We just outplayed you blah blah blah"

And yes, we did lose it. 2 of your tries were absolute gifts. At least be man enough to admit when your team had some good luck to get the win, which they did.

 

[Timmah]

Given most fans that don't bleed red and green, not to mention all commentators who called the game - all thought it was a CLEAR CUT SHEPHERD... how do you not understand that? He ran directly behind his own player in an attempt to deceive the defence, which breaches the laws of rugby league. It's as simple as that.

 

[Jason Maher]

I always love dogs and souths game, one of the best rivalries in Sydney. Two teams with the biggest fan base in Sydney

You're discounting the Dragons, Parra, and the combined fan base of Balmain/Wests on what ground?

 

[Timmah]

Dogs v Parra and Dogs v Dragons is slightly bigger, but v Souths is definitely right behind them.

 

[Bumble]

Given most fans that don't bleed red and green, not to mention all commentators who called the game - all thought it was a CLEAR CUT SHEPHERD... how do you not understand that? He ran directly behind his own player in an attempt to deceive the defence, which breaches the laws of rugby league. It's as simple as that.

Uh...no it wasn't. And no they don't. It's pretty much just Bulldogs fans that think it wasn't a try.

Video referees for all their screw-ups do not miss CLEAR CUT SHEPHERDS. Oh look, I can type pointless dribble in capital letters to reinforce my stale argument too. Yay.

 

[Bulldogs_4_Life]

That's funny, considering all the commentators thought it was an easy no try and blew up when it wasn't.

 

[Timmah]

:lol:

So we should just erase the part of the rule book where it's okay to use a teammates as a decoy by running behind him.

Yes, it's in bold because you'll probably skip over it in your ignorance of the RULES OF THE GAME.

And that's in capitals... because I can

 

[skeepe]

Uh...no it wasn't. And no they don't. It's pretty much just Bulldogs fans that think it wasn't a try.

Video referees for all their screw-ups do not miss CLEAR CUT SHEPHERDS. Oh look, I can type pointless dribble in capital letters to reinforce my stale argument too. Yay.

I'm not a Bulldogs fan. It was a clear-cut shepherd, far worse than the two the Raiders have been denied for in recent times. Obvious no try.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

Thanks for your input Skeepe.

Good to have a non-biased opinion every now and then. :roll:

 

[skeepe]

Thanks for your input Skeepe.

Good to have a non-biased opinion every now and then. :roll:

Ah, so that's the modus operandii for debates with Souths fans is it? Say anything the Souths fan disagrees with and be dismissed for bias?

Obviously I'm biased towards the Bulldogs. Obviously. :sarcasm:

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

Ah, so that's the modus operandii for debates with Souths fans is it? Say anything the Souths fan disagrees with and be dismissed for bias?

Obviously I'm biased towards the Bulldogs. Obviously. :sarcasm:

Not biased towards the Dogs, biased towards the Raiders.

Raiders got pulled up for a couple of Shepherd's so now every supposed shepherd that isn't pulled up will be "obvious" and "worse than the Raiders one that got pulled up".

You could dead set turn a discussion about two sheep rooting into a critique of how the Refs crucify the Raiders each week. The name "Skeepe" and the words "without bias" should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

 

[skeepe]

Not biased towards the Dogs, biased towards the Raiders.

Raiders got pulled up for a couple of Shepherd's so now every supposed shepherd that isn't pulled up will be "obvious" and "worse than the Raiders one that got pulled up".

You could dead set turn a discussion about two sheep rooting into a critique of how the Refs crucify the Raiders each week. The name "Skeepe" and the words "without bias" should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

I was merely stating that it was an obvious shepherd, especially when you take into account the fact that tries have been denied for far far far far less. That those denials happened to involve the Raiders is a coincidence.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

I was merely stating that it was an obvious shepherd, especially when you take into account the fact that tries have been denied for far far far far less. That those denials happened to involve the Raiders is a coincidence.

Sure it is....

 

[Timmah]

As far as I'm aware, skeepe, despite his outrageous bias, generally has a pretty good idea of rules and refereeing. In this case he's bang on.