dragonslover682
Juniors
- Messages
- 149
bump.
Hornby has been the heart and soul of the team for some years but when he took out that player to concede a penalty it showed he can be as dumb as dog shit sometimes. I love you Benny...but give yourself an uppercut
he didnt help his cause with the exaggerated dive which only drew attention to the line he was taking.IMO it should not have been a penalty.
Mind you, I was at a disadvantage. I was watching the game without any opinionated commentary.
Nice bump btw, right after fulltime from a 10 post champ with a two year history. lolbump.
theyre not going to rule an obstruction for someone running inside support to the try line. he had every right to be there in support. had he been in front of the play or held onto one of our players, then fair enough...it would be an obstruction, but he doesnt have to move out of the way for our players to catch up.Correct me on this if you like, but wasn't Hornby further away than the Canberra player who ran a block that led to them being awarded a try?
That Canberra player turned 90 degrees to take out any chance of cover defence. Not only did he give the ball carrier a clean tail, but he helped him to improve his position behind the goal line.
Now was Hornby's worse than that?
What I saw was a support player running into cover defenders. He only had eyes for them.
Hornby and the chasers were a good distance from the play.
He may not have tackled him into touch, but he would have tackled him and that's enough to put a serious question mark over the try. The try-scorer gained an advantage from his team mate running a block. Two cover defenders were impeded, one was closing in. Who knows what would happened once Nightingale got a hand on the ball-carrier?
Can you imagine the uproar if we scored a try like that?
FTR, I still think the try would have been scored. Equally, I don't think the Raiders were ever a chance of scoring at the other end when Hornby got in the way. Nevertheless, we were penalised, they were not.
But geez, the refs weren't backward in getting technical with us when we were defending our line. For example, was Soward really offsifde when he came up off the line late in the tackle count? They got a try from that. During the game, the refs picked a number of small breaches against us late in the tackle count. Presumably the Raiders were squeaky clean...?
But it's all academic now, as you say. Bottom line is that Raiders were the better team on the night and played what looked like their best game of the year.
I understand all that blacklock. Different incidents. Although both were blocking plays and benefit was given to the team attacking the goal line. One was penalised, one was not.
The fact that they (video ref) looked at the Raiders try before awarding it shows there was some initial doubt from the whistle blowers.
Btw, I did see the Raiders try again this morning and I'm of the view that Nightingale would have got to the try scorer. He may not have tackled him into touch, but he would have tackled him and that's enough to put a serious question mark over the try. The try-scorer gained an advantage from his team mate running a block. Two cover defenders were impeded, one was closing in. Who knows what would happened once Nightingale got a hand on the ball-carrier?
Can you imagine the uproar if we scored a try like that?
FTR, I still think the try would have been scored. Equally, I don't think the Raiders were ever a chance of scoring at the other end when Hornby got in the way. Nevertheless, we were penalised, they were not.
But geez, the refs weren't backward in getting technical with us when we were defending our line. For example, was Soward really offsifde when he came up off the line late in the tackle count? They got a try from that. During the game, the refs picked a number of small breaches against us late in the tackle count. Presumably the Raiders were squeaky clean...?
But it's all academic now, as you say. Bottom line is that Raiders were the better team on the night and played what looked like their best game of the year.