FW1 - FNF - Warriors 10 Parramatta 12

[Ron Jeremy]

You could say that.

The thing was, though, what would've happened if it was 12-8 and Chad Robinson tackled Michael Witt before he got the ball?

If it wasn't a penalty try, then Robinson's professional foul would've made him a hero, since Parra would've still won.

Nevertheless, Parra were the better team on the night and deserved the win, and in the end, it didn't make any difference to the outcome.

Look if chad got sinbinned ( which i felt would've been the right decision) i would be sweet, but in finals games that decision was pathetic and could mean a team missing out on the next finals games.

You have to be 100% certain, i was 45% certain he would've scored:lol: ;-)

 

[NZ Warrior]

Look if chad got sinbinned ( which i felt would've been the right decision) i would be sweet, but in finals games that decision was pathetic and could mean a team missing out on the next finals games.

You have to be 100% certain, i was 45% certain he would've scored:lol: ;-)

I think if the penalty try had not been awarded, it would have set a very ugly precedent.

If we have players taking other players out, 5m from the tryline without the ball. Then what is to stop players taking out support runners in broken field play, and risking getting away with it.

In the broad scheme of things, a penalty try had to be given.

 

[parra-matters]

I was about 60% sure he would score because if the tackle was a milisecond later he would have been pulled down short and can say that 100% that he loast the ball because of the earlt tackle? Penalty and sin bin but no penalty try if the tackle happened in the ingoal then yes but it was 5mtrs out.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

I think if the penalty try had not been awarded, it would have set a very ugly precedent.

If we have players taking other players out, 5m from the tryline without the ball. Then what is to stop players taking out support runners in broken field play, and risking getting away with it.

In the broad scheme of things, a penalty try had to be given.

I agree that a precident has to be sent, but i'm sorry there was more doubt that he wouldn't have scored then scored.

 

[Dr Crane]

No shame in losing that one.

Congratulations Parra, too good when it counted.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

thanks dude, very happy with our effort, defensively a great effort by both sides.

 

[NZ Warrior]

I agree that a precident has to be sent, but i'm sorry there was more doubt that he wouldn't have scored then scored.

Looks like neither one of us will be talked around. I just think that you are asking for trouble, if you tackle someone without the ball, that close to the tryline. It's like a cardinal sin.

I don't really see how you think there was more doubt than what there was. No one in front, 5m out from the line, nice pass coming towards Witt. It was very dirty and desperate play from Robinson, and that wasn't the first time he was pinged either.

 

[parra-matters]

Warriors played well but I think we got lucky just a lucky bounce here and there but thats finals footy, both teams had plenty of chances, Parra in the 1st half and the Warriors in the 2nd.
The turning point was when the Warriors led 4-0 and had about 6 sets straight in Parra's 20 and Parra held them out, I knew then when that pass from Price was called forward that we were going to finish stronger and win.

Cracker of a game, hope the rest of the finals games are this good.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Looks like neither one of us will be talked around. I just think that you are asking for trouble, if you tackle someone without the ball, that close to the tryline. It's like a cardinal sin.

I don't really see how you think there was more doubt than what there was. No one in front, 5m out from the line, nice pass coming towards Witt. It was very dirty and desperate play from Robinson, and that wasn't the first time he was pinged either.

My rationale was that even if it was legit Witt may have been short, lost the ball, held up etc
Please watch rd 2 against Souths, PJ scored a try where there was more possibility of a try then that, yet he wasn't awarded on ebecause there was too much doubt which was bs

Sorry dude, but can you say that was a certain try? i couldn't.

 

[NZ Warrior]

My rationale was that even if it was legit Witt may have been short, lost the ball, held up etc
Please watch rd 2 against Souths, PJ scored a try where there was more possibility of a try then that, yet he wasn't awarded on ebecause there was too much doubt which was bs

Sorry dude, but can you say that was a certain try? i couldn't.

Well Robinson ruled all that out when he tackled Witt early, didn't he? If a player does anything like that, where the opposition player is uncontested going to the tryline, then the offending player has to get what they deserve. I think that was the crux of the matter. Witt was uncontested in front of him, going to the tryline, and Robinson takes it upon himself to nullify that, illegally.

The action was blatant and solely affected Witt getting to the tryline. There is no doubt when you look at it like that.

And there is no use in playing the "consistency" card. We all know that when we talk about refereeing decisions, there is no such thing as consistency.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

I agree that consistency shouldn't be a factor, but i have servere doubts witt would've scored that.

 

[CrazyEel]

Warriors just lost out but deserve plenty of credit for a really tough game and fantastic defense. I honestly believe they will beat whoever they play next week, either Cows or dogs.

 

[Skram]

easy, there was alot of doubt, the vid ref has to be 100% sure which was bs. Apparently Bill has no wsaid you dont have too bahahahahaha

Anyway the score flattered the warriors

Witt finished up sitting upright on his knees no more than half a metre from the tryline, close enough to reach out and plant the ball, thats with the tackle being half a second early. Had the tackle been made when it should of it was a try for all money.

 

[NZ Warrior]

I agree that consistency shouldn't be a factor, but i have servere doubts witt would've scored that.

Any doubts are purely "what if's". What if Witt had dropped the ball? What if Witt was held up? What if Robinson made a 1 on 1 strip? What if Witt didn't ground the ball correctly?

Do you see what I'm getting at? All of these "what if's" were nullified, because Robinson made an illegal tackle on a player making his way, unimpeded to the tryline.

Harrigan's hand was forced, he had to give it a penalty try. Robinson forced him to make that call.

 

[NZ Warrior]

I've just given a big wrap to Hass and their post in the "Bill Harrigan" thread in the NRL forum. It is sure to put this matter to bed.

Suck it, Phil Gould!!!

 

[pantherz9103]

Well played to both teams. My bet of the Eels going further than the Dogs is looking good (at the moment). Warriors a bit unlucky but I'm confident they'll get another chance. Even if they have to go to Townsville or play the Dogs they are capable of winning with that defence. They could get rid of Ah Van though.

 

[NZ Warrior]

I think the snipers will be looking out for Swann more. I feel a lynch mob building up in the Warriors' forum.

 

[effnic]

Witt choking in a finals again, whats new?I like how Gould said he is a player other teams like to target and run at ahahahhaha.

 

[byrne_rovelli_fan82]

...and I love the fact you are once again showing why you have no intelligence.

 

[voltron]

hahaha
i think swann deserves it
a pass and its a try, finished.
but yeah....LOL