BullShit Referees

[madunit]

Seriously - you are just coming across as more and more stupid. Ever heard the phrase pot, kettle, black.

The effort for the bomb was poor but the tackle on Lewis was a try saver. He was taken out plain and simple for the other try.

Keep going on if you want too but you are wrong and simply being a f**ken tool

He was pushed, not held, not knocked to the ground. He made no effort once pushed.

Refs aren't going to rule in your favour if you stand and whinge and don't try. How is the ref going to know how much you were impeded if you don't even try to make the tackle? What yous ay to the ref in those situations is "I had no intentions of trying to make the tackle"

I don't think he would have stopped a try, but if he had have made an attempt and failed, he would have had a strong case and the ruling would have been more likely to go in our favour.

That is a fact.

 

[gUt]

As a neutral I thought it probably should have been a penalty but all Moltzen had to do was give the covering tackle his best effort to force the video ref into giving the penalty. By giving up on the play he was giving the video ref no chance to compare his presumably failed attempt with what might have happened had he not been bumped. If that makes sense.

 

[Micistm]

Lol, internet debate...you can't beat it! ;-)

Although it raises in interesting point about the Refs. Is it the refs or the rules? Most teams get shafted with 50/50 calls down to interpretation, and that interpretation depends on specific refs...making it look inconsistant. And if it frustrates us as fans shit players and coaches have gotta be tearing their hair out.
With League, I've always loved the simplicity. A far better spectator sport than Union IMO because of this...there was a time when a whistle was blown you knew exactly what it was for. Now there seems to be a bit of grey area kicking in. It's not good IMO.
If it aint broke don't fix it. Upper torso tries, and shit like that? We know what is a try and what constitutes control. We had two tries in Origin 1&3 specifically that were open to debate, and were tries under the 'current interpretation.' Although I'm a queensland supporter, it makes you uneasy close games with so much at stake can be decided on things that can be argued one way or the other.
I dunno. Back to basics IMO! ;-)

 

[gronkathon]

If Moltzen had even changed his line towards the Panthers attack after being pushed they call it a No Try IMHO.

Whaen you don't put an effort in and in fact retreat away from the try line backwards you make it very easy to rule that you would have had no effect in stopping the try. He changes angle back towards the attacking players and gets withing a couple of metres there is demonstatable evidence that were it not for the contact from opposition decoys he would have had a fair attempt at stopping the try.

That is the interpretation in play, players know this. Very unprofessional from Moltzen

 

[leoc]

Lol, internet debate...you can't beat it! ;-)

Although it raises in interesting point about the Refs. Is it the refs or the rules? Most teams get shafted with 50/50 calls down to interpretation, and that interpretation depends on specific refs...making it look inconsistant. And if it frustrates us as fans shit players and coaches have gotta be tearing their hair out.
With League, I've always loved the simplicity. A far better spectator sport than Union IMO because of this...there was a time when a whistle was blown you knew exactly what it was for. Now there seems to be a bit of grey area kicking in. It's not good IMO.
If it aint broke don't fix it. Upper torso tries, and shit like that? We know what is a try and what constitutes control. We had two tries in Origin 1&3 specifically that were open to debate, and were tries under the 'current interpretation.' Although I'm a queensland supporter, it makes you uneasy close games with so much at stake can be decided on things that can be argued one way or the other.
I dunno. Back to basics IMO! ;-)

That just about sums it up perfectly.

 

[innsaneink]

Moltzen made a conscious decision to give up, quit, dog it.

 

[The Charlatan]

Leave him MU, he's a f**king tosser and a troll to boot.

 

[The Gambler]

He was pushed, not held, not knocked to the ground. He made no effort once pushed.

Refs aren't going to rule in your favour if you stand and whinge and don't try. How is the ref going to know how much you were impeded if you don't even try to make the tackle? What yous ay to the ref in those situations is "I had no intentions of trying to make the tackle"

I don't think he would have stopped a try, but if he had have made an attempt and failed, he would have had a strong case and the ruling would have been more likely to go in our favour.

That is a fact.

I agree with this assessment - that would have been the line of thinking the video ref took.

"Hmm - Tim the pea heart gave up because he got brushed on the way through. He has pulled out quicker than he did with the St George contract, so I can't determine whether he could have saved the try or not - TRY"

I do however have an issue with this approach. I believe that it is quite clear that Moltzen was obstructed. Shackleton bumped into him and slowed him down - this should be a penalty every time, whether a try is being scored or not. Moltzen was obviously in the play, and any reasonable person would say he could have at least put further pressure on the player with the ball. Just because he gave up shouldn't mean a penalty isn't awarded. Because as far as I know, no where in the rules does it stipulate that a player needs to continue trying to make a tackle after they have been obstructed.

 

[Tiger05]

I agree with this assessment - that would have been the line of thinking the video ref took.

"Hmm - Tim the pea heart gave up because he got brushed on the way through. He has pulled out quicker than he did with the St George contract, so I can't determine whether he could have saved the try or not - TRY"

I do however have an issue with this approach. I believe that it is quite clear that Moltzen was obstructed. Shackleton bumped into him and slowed him down - this should be a penalty every time, whether a try is being scored or not. Moltzen was obviously in the play, and any reasonable person would say he could have at least put further pressure on the player with the ball. Just because he gave up shouldn't mean a penalty isn't awarded. Because as far as I know, no where in the rules does it stipulate that a player needs to continue trying to make a tackle after they have been obstructed.

Reality is that he was taken out. Everything else is bullshit.

 

[hutch]

Reality is that he was taken out. Everything else is bullshit.

exactly right!