Archer last night

[Craigshark]

Did Nigel Vagana in ANY way SHAPE or FORM do anything to impede/provoke/push Trent Barrett?

Yes or no?

When is it going to sink in?

I have already said that Vagana touched Barrett.. When will that sink in?
BUT, i don't think the touch on Barrett was enough to make him fall over like he did. If Barrett hadn't have taken the dive, he may have been able to make the tackle on Gallen. Instead he was too worried about trying to milk the penalty.

 

[Craigshark]

Ha Ha In this case 2 wrongs make a right :lol:

Yes, Willows logic is quite dumb. We would have players elbowing players in heads off all kicks, because if one does, so can the other. We would have penalties after every play the ball, because every attacking player always place at least a hand on the marker.

 

[Iafeta]

I have already said that Vagana touched Barrett.. When will that sink in?
BUT, i don't think the touch on Barrett was enough to make him fall over like he did. If Barrett hadn't have taken the dive, he may have been able to make the tackle on Gallen. Instead he was too worried about trying to milk the penalty.

You make it sound like a love tap.

He shoved him, whether he milked it or not is irrelevant, it is a penalty.

No try. Discussion over.

 

[Iafeta]

Yes, Willows logic is quite dumb. We would have players elbowing players in heads off all kicks, because if one does, so can the other. We would have penalties after every play the ball, because every attacking player always place at least a hand on the marker.

Hows his logical "quite dumb" when you've spent post after post avoiding simple black and white questions regarding the play?

If it was "quite dumb", how come you couldn't come up with any logical answer but kept trying to dodge the bullet?

 

[Craigshark]

You make it sound like a love tap.

He shoved him, whether he milked it or not is irrelevant, it is a penalty.

No try. Discussion over.

Ok whatever you reckon. From now on, i expect to see a thread devoted to every touch/push/shove whatever you want to call it, by the attacking player on the marker. By either you or Willow, if a penalty isn't given for it. No double standards.
His logic is dumb, and if you agree with him, so is your's. What you are basically saying is that there should be a penalty whenever a player touches the marker.
Most won't look as bad though, because not everyone takes the cat option and dives over.

 

[The Shire]

barret took a dive, he could have done push ups while he was down there JKS

foward pass to cost game IMO

ten / seven was the same for both sides it was blowen up by dragons fans

 

[Craigshark]

barret took a dive, he could have done push ups while he was down there JKS

foward pass to cost game IMO

ten / seven was the same for both sides it was blowen up by dragons fans

So true.
Archer may have got it wrong. But he was consistant.

 

[Willow]

Craigshark... tsk tsk. Yeah I know the rules of the game and you don't. That's pretty dumb on my part. lol

The end result isnt the issue - I'm comfortable with it all... more than you are it seems.

The main issue its trying to get you to understand one of the most basic rules of the game.

I'm willing to bet that if Barrett hit Vagana in the face at marker, you'd be singing a different tune. Such is your hypocrisy.

I pointed out the high shot on Hornby as a reply to your 'selective memory' jibe, you set yourself up there. And if you read it all, I said it to illustrate that dodgy referreeing went both ways. I saw loads of ref errors. An yes, this included forward passes from both sides.

One of our brightest stars, Undertaker 'look at me I use bold font' Mike missed this point. He used a bit of selective editing and its no surprise that this appealed to your selective memory.

 

[Craigshark]

Craigshark... tsk tsk. Yeah I know the rules of the game and you don't. That's pretty dumb on my part. lol

The end result isnt the issue - I'm comfortable with it all... more than you are it seems.

The main issue its trying to get you to understand one of the most basic rules of the game.

I'm willing to bet that if Barrett hit Vagana in the face at marker, you'd be singing a different tune. Such is your hypocrisy.

I pointed out the high shot on Hornby as a reply to your 'selective memory' jibe, you set yourself up there. And if you read it all, I said it to illustrate that dodgy referreeing went both ways. I saw loads of ref errors. An yes, this included forward passes from both sides.

One of our brightest stars, Undertaker 'look at me I use bold font' Mike missed this point. He used a bit of selective editing and its no surprise that this appealed to your selective memory.

And i am willing to bet that if Barrett did the same to Vagana, Vagana would have kept playing the game and not have dived on the ground looking for a penalty.
If Barrett hadn't have taken the dive, would we be here talking about it? No.
You know the rules? Yes, there is a rule that the attacking player can't touch the marker. BUT, when do we ever see this rule enforced? I could bring up about 1000 examples of this same kind of thing happening throughout the year, only the players not taking dives. Why haven't you said anything about these incidents?
Why are you only singling out this one? Because it happened against your team?
Whinger.

 

[J-Man]

Barrett looked like he had been shot by a sniper. :lol::lol::lol:
It probably should have been a penalty, but these things happen all game long.

I do remember Ennis getting up to play the ball and grabbing Kimmorley foot at marker causing him to fall over. Same thing, but less dramatic?

Archer has sucked for years, but I've seen him referee much worse than last nite.

 

[Willow]

His logic is dumb, and if you agree with him, so is your's.

Well there you go Iafeta. You can't argue with that 'logic'. :lol:
Is there any point debating this with someone who when it suits him, just won't acknowledge the rules of the game?

What you are basically saying is that there should be a penalty whenever a player touches the marker.

What? I never said that. Are reading anything here?

Firstly it wasn't just a 'touch'. That's your first point of denial.
And secondly, I personally have no problem with the decision, whats done is done. But the FACT is Vagana could have been penalised because he broke the one the fundamental rules of the game. That's your second point of denial.

 

[Willow]

And i am willing to bet that if Barrett did the same to Vagana, Vagana would have kept playing the game and not have dived on the ground looking for a penalty.

I see you didnt attempt to deny the claim:
I'm willing to bet that if Barrett hit Vagana in the face at marker, you'd be singing a different tune. Such is your hypocrisy.

If Barrett hadn't have taken the dive, would we be here talking about it? No.

Hey, its not me repeatedly calling a first grade player a 'cat'. You're the one that seems pretty highly strung about it.

You know the rules? Yes, there is a rule that the attacking player can't touch the marker.

Noooo.. I pretty sure the wording would be along the lines of 'obstruct', 'impede', or perhaps 'interfere'. I don't think 'touch' would be wording. Perhaps this is where you're getting confused.
Vagana's action was far from a casual touch.

I could bring up about 1000 examples of this same kind of thing happening throughout the year

OK... 1000 exmaples. Lets have them.

Why haven't you said anything about these incidents?

Because it was brought up in this thread. You the Covelliers are leading the silly cat calls.

Why are you only singling out this one? Because it happened against your team?

Nope. Already said it several times that I'm comfortable with the end result and thems the breaks. How many more times would you like me to say it?

I'm not singling out anything and I've already answered that question earlier... would you like it in triplicate?

But that's a tad irrelevant don't you think? its a discussion thread, or have you forgotten that?

Whinger.

:lol: Last time I checked the Sharks were awarded the try and you've been whinging about it incessantly.
Again, I was OK with the end result of that - now I think I've said it five different ways on five occasions.

But facts are facts... Vagana breached the rules.

 

[Craigshark]

edit

 

[Willow]

Hmm.. you're sounding a tad sore around the loser area now.

Well that's the best you've got, we'll leave it. Can lead a horse to water but...

At least we managed to get the seven forward passes in one movement downgraded to two. :lol:

 

[Craigshark]

^

There was nothing in the incident. That is my opinion.. You have your's. We will never agree. So lets no go around in circles.

I posted that on page 3. You are the one who is strung up about it.

 

[Southernsaint]

edit

Best thing you've contributed to this subject!!

 

[Craigshark]

And that edit post, was nothing about the game itself mind you. It had to do with you answering questions. But after i posted it, i noticed you had posted yours.
So really, it has nothing to do with being a sore loser.

 

[BWNB]

Vagana breached the rules.

we could point out some times the dragons did push markers away in the match it only looked worse than it was cause barrets a cat and he couldnt stand up for himself.

If you want a good game of footy you cant give penalties away for infringments like that , cause there would be no momentum and the penalty count would be high 20's

 

[miketyson]

we could point out some times the dragons did push markers away in the match it only looked worse than it was cause barrets a cat and he couldnt stand up for himself.

If you want a good game of footy you cant give penalties away for infringments like that , cause there would be no momentum and the penalty count would be high 20's

If you don't think that was a penalty your an idiot.

What vagana did was nothing like any other play the ball during the game.

 

[BWNB]

If you don't think that was a penalty your an idiot.

What vagana did was nothing like any other play the ball during the game.

yes because im sure no-one was grappling like he was holding onto dear life , like barret was