- Messages
- 28,978
Lol please, pull the other one.NAS is pretty much the same distance back from the kicker than AKP was. Both behind.
Lol please, pull the other one.NAS is pretty much the same distance back from the kicker than AKP was. Both behind.
NAS is pretty much the same distance back from the kicker than AKP was. Both behind.
I agree, I'm not saying this one wasn't close, just the correct call was made. And it was never going to get over-turned in the bunker despite LU deluding themselves he was clearly behind.There's no clear, definitive indicator for the correct centimetre required to make that call.
The correct call should be that it's line ball and therefore too close to make a call of offside.
It shits me when they miss howlers and then act like they have superman-like laser vision on other calls that are bee's dicks one way or the other.
Make the obvious calls and stop trying to suddenly be super-f**king-man!
NAS was clearly offside when he chased Hughes’ kick with 26 min to go in the 2nd half. A good metre. That was the one where Melbourne challenged the NAS knock on and the bunker upheld the challenge. The bunker did not check whether The chaser (NAS) was onside. They only looked at the challenge. It resulted in 6 points to the Storm. Badger should be sacked for not following protocol by
Yeah, I just think this one was too close to uphold the decision and so they should reverse it on basis of there being insufficient evidence to back the initial call by the ref.I agree, I'm not saying this one wasn't close, just the correct call was made. And it was never going to get over-turned in the bunker despite LU deluding themselves he was clearly behind.
If you want to see what an obvious offside looks like. Tackle 5 Titans first set of the game, Sam Verrills is a minimum 2m offside, Papuyhuzen catches it on the 5m line, is tackled by Verills on the 10m line.
The very picture that he posted proves he wasn’t offside.Yeah, I just think this one was too close to uphold the decision and so they should reverse it on basis of there being insufficient evidence to back the initial call by the ref.
I know that's not the current rule but I wish they'd change it for calls such as offside like these. It should be either clear and undoubted offside otherwise it isn't.
Anyhoo ...Good chat.
Ifs and butsIf only Kelly doesn't bomb that one and you aren't robbed of one and it's 22 all![]()
Go to specsaversNAS was clearly offside when he chased Hughes’ kick with 26 min to go in the 2nd half. A good metre. That was the one where Melbourne challenged the NAS knock on and the bunker upheld the challenge. The bunker did not check whether The chaser (NAS) was onside. They only looked at the challenge. It resulted in 6 points to the Storm. Badger should be sacked for not following protocol by
literally started myself with 'if' ya dope hahaIfs and buts
He wasn't even trying to catch the ball. He just stuck an arm out after jumping into the bloke trying to catch it. Clearly impeded him. It should have been a Titans penalty.NAS was clearly offside when he chased Hughes’ kick with 26 min to go in the 2nd half. A good metre. That was the one where Melbourne challenged the NAS knock on and the bunker upheld the challenge. The bunker did not check whether The chaser (NAS) was onside. They only looked at the challenge. It resulted in 6 points to the Storm. Badger should be sacked for not following protocol by
He wasn't even trying to catch the ball. He just stuck an arm out after jumping into the bloke trying to catch it. Clearly impeded him. It should have been a Titans penalty.
Would love to know what your point of reference is for judging this, please share.The very picture that he posted proves he wasn’t offside.
It's the very reason that disruptor interpretation was introduced. To stop the player from just running through the player attempting to catch the ball. But I guess we can just let it slide? It's not like the Melbourne Storm to take the absolute piss out of the rulebook.I mean it probably started as a disruptor attempt but it's a bit hard to argue he wasn't going for the ball once he played at, and made contact with, the ball...