'12 | R11 | Sun | Sea Eagles 18-10 Roosters | Brookvale

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Jeez Moanly fans have to be the dumbest merkins out of any team

 

[ceagle]

Mortimer should replace Anasta in the halves this year, looked far more dangerous then Anasta ever could.

 

[Cliffhanger]

Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that Mortimer was denied a legitimate try has reached an unredeemable level of genius.

 

[dogslife]

That Mortimer no try was rubbish

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

doesn't matter anyway. the score will always show manly were victors 18-10. unlucky roosters. still don't know what the deal with the dropped ball from tagive(or whatever his name is) and manly try, he wasn't held and dropped the ball. manly scores.

Once a player is being lifted and both feet are off the ground he automatically becomes held when carried backwards. The rule was brought in a few years back.

 

[bennoonthehill]

Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that Mortimer was denied a legitimate try has reached an unredeemable level of genius.

tough call or not, the pass before hand was clearly forward, so its balanced out as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Lambretta]

Watching today was so frustrating on a number of fronts

Also another penalty count lost. That's one penalty count win from 11 games and one draw. Consistency - that's the key!

Having the Mortimer try disallowed was just bloody awful. At full speed there was nothing wrong with it. Why the referee even went to the video ref is completely beyond me. There was nothing to see. Except there was - from a certain angle and if you slowed it down enough, the Roosters forwards arm accidentally came into contact in the most superficial way with a Manly defender. These sort of contacts occur a thousand times a week and never is a word said. But no, because the Roosters score a try lets use it as an excuse to wipe off the try.

How many tries scored by the Roosters have been referred this season only to be disallowed when the majority think they were probably tries? How many games have we lost or potentially lost because of them?


That said - it should have been the thing to spur the Roosters into action to give them the ammunition to want to win this one. Yet it didn't. During one set we went down the short side every time and meekly turned it over on the fifth. It was pathetic. Then another time Mini was through and just plain dropped it. These things, more than video referee decisions cost us the game and what hurts more is its these things that we should be able to control. We can't control the opinion of others - only our own actions.

But for all my negativity - I can see a lot of positives in the Roosters side. We have some great young players at our club and they're only going to improve. Yes I'd love to see us win games and see their confidence lift, especially as we've lost three out of four games and they've all been games we could have won. But the fact we're in games right to the death against the majority of the teams in the comp means we're not too far off the pace.

Yes Manly were missing key players, but we were missing Pearce and Skidsy today and they're pretty much our best two as well. If we'd had a bit of luck today we would have won, but we just didn't create the luck we needed. Soon we will - I'm sure of it.

 

[Patorick]

Good on the club and Quantum for giving rings to the 72 grand final winning team.

Yet to be confirmed if Melinda Gainsford got one too...

 

[firechild]

Once a player is being lifted and both feet are off the ground he automatically becomes held when carried backwards. The rule was brought in a few years back.

That may be the case but since when is a player allowed to drop the ball at any point between being tackled and playing the ball? While no try might have been the correct call, he still dropped the ball and it should have been a scrum to Manly 10m out. He basically dropped it as he was liften though so that should have been play on, try to Manly.

Also, since when is putting an elbow into someone's face (whether as attacker or defender) been legal? Refs got that one right.

Manly has won about 2 penalty counts so far this year and both times the same bunch of merkins, headed by skeepe, have not stopped whining about how the refs won it for Manly.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

That may be the case but since when is a player allowed to drop the ball at any point between being tackled and playing the ball? While no try might have been the correct call, he still dropped the ball and it should have been a scrum to Manly 10m out. He basically dropped it as he was liften though so that should have been play on, try to Manly.

Also, since when is putting an elbow into someone's face (whether as attacker or defender) been legal? Refs got that one right.

Manly has won about 2 penalty counts so far this year and both times the same bunch of merkins, headed by skeepe, have not stopped whining about how the refs won it for Manly.

Technically it was a Roosters penalty, he was held and Manly continued on with the tackle and did not let him go.

 

[Danny-Boy]

Technically it was a Roosters penalty, he was held and Manly continued on with the tackle and did not let him go.

When the referee was questioned he said, "one foot was off the ground so I had to call held".

Technically he got it wrong as both feet need to be off the ground to call held.

Should have been a fair try to Manly.

 

[morley101]

Whenever the referee calls held it is the end of the tackle.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

When the referee was questioned he said, "one foot was off the ground so I had to call held".

Technically he got it wrong as both feet need to be off the ground to call held.

Should have been a fair try to Manly.

Both feet were off the ground for about 3 seconds.. Sorry to bring facts into the argument..

 

[MSIH]

Well if you want to be pedantic, the Ref should've called held on the guy who offloaded it for the Mortimer no try. All momentum had stopped.

I thought it was a harsh call, the no try, but I still think the better side won on the day.

 

[Danish]

I'd stopped caring by this point as the refs had already made their intentions clear, but the 2 most ridiculous calls of the day were the final 2 penalties to Manly.

First, we see Mini pinged for being offside from a midfield bomb. Replays show he was onside, and besides which the kicker (jake friend) also ran him onside and was in front of mini when he actually played at the ball.

Second, we see Mossy penalised for having a handbag thrown at him by George Rose who then spilt it cold with not a hand on him. Still scatching my head at this one.

I genuinely think Maxwell does not know the rules of our game. Its the only conclusion that can be made judging by some of his incredible decisions yesterday and in previous matches

 

[skeepe]

Well if you want to be pedantic, the Ref should've called held on the guy who offloaded it for the Mortimer no try. All momentum had stopped.

That wouldn't be pedantic, it would be plain wrong. But I wouldn't expect a Manly fan to know the rules.

 

[firechild]

Regarding the no-try to Mortimer. King was penalised for exactly the same thing in the WCC so it's not like it's the first time this rule has been applied.

 

[MSIH]

That wouldn't be pedantic, it would be plain wrong. But I wouldn't expect a Manly fan to know the rules.

So you aren't held when you've stopped moving? You can just stand upright forever? I stand corrected.

4 wins in a row for Manly now Weepe, you'd be hating Rugby League more than ever right now?

 

[Valheru]

I thought it was a harsh call, the no try, but I still think the better side won on the day.

Who gives a crap if the better team won or not. The fact is we were on the wrong end of a number of questionable calls (again), one of which was the most ridiculous call of the year which denied us a chance to even the score at that stage.

It’s ok though because the roosters aren’t expected to win, Manly “dug deep” and the “better team won”.

 

[slamminsam246]

So you spastics are either saying it should not of been a penalty or that the try would of been scored anyway. I direct the idiots that don't know the rules to this:

http://www.coachrugbyleague.com.au/coachingcentre/minimod/Section A - Legal Responsibilities.pdf

Read bottom of 4th page - rule #4 "Vicious Palm"

To those that say it didn't effect the "try" I got two (2) completely valid points.
1. The "vicious palm" was not only dangerous, but it also prevented Harrison from wrapping up the ball and stopping the offload. Not saying he definitely would of but he was denied the chance due to the infringement
2. Now that we've established it was an infringement, due to it being in the same "play" the try was scored, the refs had every right to call it back and have a look. And if you've watched more than a few Nrl games in the last 4-5years, Refs have done this on numerous occasions for other errors like 2 on one strips, obstruction, high tackles etc...