Archer last night

[Iafeta]

That just shows how much you DON'T know about football. If you had even watched one game this season which Stevens played in, you would realise that he has been one of our best players.. On his day, he is still one of the best front-rowers in the game, even though he is retiring.
Wedgies don't make someone a cat.

Its got NOTHING to do with the players ability.

A cat is a milker of a penalty, or a whining biatch IMO.

Stevens is DEFINITELY one of those. Hopoate is a cat for injecting his fingers, Stevo is a cat for trying to get a look at where those fingers were injected.

If you look up the Oxford Dictionary for the word "cat" there'll be a photo sized picture of Jason Stevens next to the definition.

 

[General E. Injured]

archer was good apart from the two blatant forward passes in the decisive try. he did pull up the dragons' earlier forward passes though, which few refs would do in front of a big home crowd. as someone else said just because the crowd boos a lot doesnt mean they are always offside.

when will barrett learn to play the whistle instead of being melodramatic?

 

[Iafeta]

It wasn't a penalty.
Barrett maybe should become an actor. He seemed to do a good enough job to have all you fooled. There was nothing in it and Barrett knew it.

A lot of fans not affiliated with EITHER club believe its a penalty.

The only ones defending it are Sharks fans.

Go figure. Who's being fooled.

 

[Iafeta]

I don't know, you seem to be making a big fuss about Barrett's role in it all. He fell on his back after copping one in the face from Vagana. God dammit! Let's hunt down Barrett and hang him from the nearest tree.

You might want to address the question being posed. Did Vagana break the rules Craigshark?

No-one's going to answer your question Willow, because its factual. No one is going to respond to your logic unfortunately, just for that very reason, its logical.

Instead they'll try and go the BBSF/craigshark melodramatic-non factual route to try and spice up their side of it - you know, 20 seconds hold down, 7 forward passes, wedgying blokes doesn't make OUR player a cat.

 

[Craigshark]

I don't know, you seem to be making a big fuss about Barrett's role in it all. He fell on his back after copping one in the face from Vagana. God dammit! Let's hunt down Barrett and hang him from the nearest tree.

You might want to address the question being posed. Did Vagana break the rules Craigshark?

Vagana did nothing different to what you see at every play the ball. The only reason you are complaining is because we scored a try from it. By your logic we would see a penalty every play the ball.
Still doesn't take away the fact that Barrett made it look a lot more worse than what it really was.

 

[Willow]

Vagana did nothing different to what you see at every play the ball. The only reason you are complaining is because we scored a try from it. By your logic we would see a penalty every play the ball.
Still doesn't take away the fact that Barrett made it look a lot more worse than what it really was.

I'm not the one complaining. :lol:

I've got no problem with the outcome.

Can you answer the question Craigshark?

 

[Craigshark]

I'm not the one complaining. :lol:

I've got no problem with the outcome.

Can you answer the question Craigshark?

You are saying that it shouldn't have been a try.. That is enough complaining.
From what i have seen this year and in all the other years, Vagana didn't do anything different to any other player that gets up and plays the ball. What made the incident look worse and different to others was Barrett diving over.
He didn't break the rules. Barrett took a dive from a touch from Vagana which you see every play the ball.
As i said by your logic we would have a penalty every play the ball.

 

[Iafeta]

You are saying that it shouldn't have been a try.. That is enough complaining.
From what i have seen this year and in all the other years, Vagana didn't do anything different to any other player that gets up and plays the ball. What made the incident look worse and different to others was Barrett diving over.
He didn't break the rules. Barrett took a dive from a touch from Vagana which you see every play the ball.
As i said by your logic we would have a penalty every play the ball.

He's asked you to find the rule where it says the attacking player is allowed to take out the marking defender.

THATS the answer to this whole thread, but you are going the long way around avoiding it.

 

[Willow]

You are saying that it shouldn't have been a try.. That is enough complaining.

Where did I say it shouldnt have been a try? I said imo, he was lucky not to be penalised. If he was penalised, there would have been no try but the ref let it go. The ref erred in this but he made a lot of mistakes. On this occasion, the rub of the green went the Sharks way.

I say again, I'm comfortable with the outcome.

I'm just (attempting) to have a reasoned discussion on what the rules say.

He didn't break the rules.

And if you don't mind me saying, that is a ridiculous claim. You're just in denial now.

Craigshark, I can answer the question for you:
It is in fact illegal to obstruct the marker.

 

[Craigshark]

Not they are not. But Vagana didn't. Vagana touched him. Barrett basically took himself out, trying to milk the penalty.. What do you call those players again? Cats? Yes Barrett is a cat.

Answer me this question, do you see attacking players push or touch the markers at nearly every play the ball?

 

[Iafeta]

Craigshark, your only defence in this debate is if you find something in the rule book that says the attacking player can obstruct/take out the marker.

Regardless of how you perceive the incident, whether you believe its play acting or fair dinkum, I'm fairly sure the rules do infact say you are not allowed to obstruct or impede the defence including the marker.

I see people speeding on the roads, that doesn't make it anymore right for the person who gets caught doing it. Its indefencible to use other examples as an excuse, its either in the rules or its not.

 

[Craigshark]

Craigshark, your only defence in this debate is if you find something in the rule book that says the attacking player can obstruct/take out the marker.

Regardless of how you perceive the incident, whether you believe its play acting or fair dinkum, I'm fairly sure the rules do infact say you are not allowed to obstruct or impede the defence including the marker.

I see people speeding on the roads, that doesn't make it anymore right for the person who gets caught doing it. Its indefencible to use other examples as an excuse, its either in the rules or its not.

So why aren't we discussing these kind of incidents after every match?

 

[Willow]

Not they are not. But Vagana didn't. Vagana touched him.

Vagana did more than just 'touch him' - it was a neat whack in the face. The bloke has a habit of attacking the head of other players. He head high on Hornby last night was a beauty. But you probably missed that one.
Seriously, he should get that out of his game.

lol @ "Barrett is cat". I tell you what Craigshark, write a letter to the NRL stating your case. See if you can get 'cat' entered into the rule book and falling over made illegal.

So why aren't we discussing these kind of incidents after every match?

I think it started when your fellow supporter made the silly claim that Barrett held onto Vagana for 20 seconds. lol

Still doesn't change the rule book Craigshark - a point which seems to have evaded you.

 

[Iafeta]

So why aren't we discussing these kind of incidents after every match?

See, again trying to go the long way around avoiding the issue.

It is a penalisable offence or not?

Answer yes.

Should it have been a try? Answer no.

There's no comebacks to it, aside from getting melodramatic and opinionated, that is the fact of the matter UNLESS you find something that says a player is allowed to do that.

 

[Southernsaint]

The refereeing was disgraceful, IMO.

Archer's 10m was non-existent for Saints & he let the Sharks players lay all over the ruck.

This, and the fact that Saints got out of second gear for about 10 minutes kept the Shire in the game...

 

[BWNB]

Mate, Barret took himself out it wasnt vagana , he just taped him and he acted like a Mac truck hit him.

Why are you complaining about that?

Did you guys see kimmorley get taken out in the first half when he kicked , hit high and late.

 

[BWNB]

The refereeing was disgraceful, IMO.

Archer's 10m was non-existent for Saints & he let the Sharks players lay all over the ruck.

This, and the fact that Saints got out of second gear for about 10 minutes kept the Shire in the game...

Yea :roll:

you couldnt hold the ball in the first half could you?

they where playing the wrong style of footy

 

[Craigshark]

Mate, Barret took himself out it wasnt vagana , he just taped him and he acted like a Mac truck hit him.

Why are you complaining about that?

Did you guys see kimmorley get taken out in the first half when he kicked , hit high and late.

No, they have selective memories.
Willow, stop trying to blame Vagana, for your own teams Captains cat actions, of taking a dive.

 

[Southernsaint]

Yea :roll:

you couldnt hold the ball in the first half could you?

they where playing the wrong style of footy

In that case, Cronulla had the ball for the majority of the first half & couldn't capitalise.

What's that say about Cronulla??

 

[BWNB]

In that case, Cronulla had the ball for the majority of the first half & couldn't capitalise.

What's that say about Cronulla??

couldnt captalise , we should of won we could of won.

Where were proud of our boys today.