Gould at His Best

[trudge]

Kevin Moore took off the NRL top tackler with 10 to go.

Bail refused.

 

[Timmah]

Who cares..the rule should be that the benefit of the doubt should go to the defence on kicks.
Probably could easily have been given based on the rule as it is.
Did it deserve a try...not really...was a crap kick.
Could have got a penalty for impedence in the chase maybe.
But roosters were getting some crucial bad calls...

However, thats no excuse for letting in so many soft tries.

There was no doubt :lol:

Kevin Moore took off the NRL top tackler with 10 to go.

Bail refused.

Completely agree. Barba nor Stagg should have been hooked. Dumb coaching.

 

[zombie jesus]

I heard Anasta on 2UE last night, he said he was sure he scored, said his hand was always on the ball, but conceded after seeing replays he could understand how it went against him.

 

[Lambretta]

What 50/50 calls went against the dogs exactly? The calls that went against the chooks weren’t even 50/50’s, they were plain awful and wrong decisions.

If you actually listened to Gould, the whole first half he was saying the dogs looked the better and were outplaying the roosters…. How is that bias?

Mate, dont even try to argue, you wont win.

When it comes to the Roosters everyone is biased against them and to be honest, we dont really care.

Gould was praising the Dogs quite alot, as he does quite often as he used to coach them and obviously loves them. But you'll never get anyone mentioning it.

Last year he was rightfully caning the Roosters every chance he got. Not because he suddenly hated the team, but because the Roosters were plainly awful. But no one mentioned Gould's sudden anti Roosters stance - they were too busy revelling in how f**king piss poor the Roosters were.

As soon as the Roosters do something good and Gould comments on it (as he comments on how good the Dragons are or the Broncos are etc etc) then Gould is pro Roosters. Never pro Dogs, pro Broncos or pro Dragons for praising them, just pro Roosters.

As for the Anasta no try, Sterlo and Rabs were both saying it was a try - but people wont focus on the fact that three people ALL watching the same thing had the same opinion - no, they'll just focus on the fact that one of those three people was Phil Gould and the team getting the tough end of the call were the Roosters.

Gould was demanding a try for the Dogs when the video ref was watching over and over and stating loudly that it would be a travesty if the try was dis-allowed - but people wont remember that, because he was being pro Bulldogs (which was a correct decision to give the try) and not pro Roosters.

It's not even worth worrying about it.

 

[Lambretta]

I managed to catch both ABC and 2GB discussions on the event and both stations were in agreeance it was the correct decision.

Just because Sterlo says so, doesn't make it right.

It was a try. Anasta never lost control of the ball and whilst it hit Kimmorley it needs to be dropped or lost into a player to be a knock on.

Otherwise every time a player from another team touches the ball you have to call it a knock on.

I'd even probably have gone with benefit of the doubt as there is an arguement Anasta might have not caught it had Kimmorley been in the way - which is a fair enough arguement. But no seperation means you have two ways of looking at it. Therefore benefit to the attacking team and a try should have been awarded.


As a point of interest - the Cowboys actually did a similar thing earlier in the season against the Roosters - except there was clear seperation between the Cowboys player touching it, it hitting a Rooster and the Cowboy regathering it and the Cowboys were awarded the try.

When I saw the decision on Anastas effort go to the video ref I knew what
the result was going to be as the Roosters appear to be the new Canberra as far as video refereeing goes.

Oh well. What goes around comes around I suppose. We'll get some go our way one day.

 

[Timmah]

It was a try. Anasta never lost control of the ball and whilst it hit Kimmorley it needs to be dropped or lost into a player to be a knock on.

Otherwise every time a player from another team touches the ball you have to call it a knock on.

I'd even probably have gone with benefit of the doubt as there is an arguement Anasta might have not caught it had Kimmorley been in the way - which is a fair enough arguement. But no seperation means you have two ways of looking at it. Therefore benefit to the attacking team and a try should have been awarded.

Not sure what replays you've watched - the ball was propelled forward by Anasta into Kimmorley without any control. Had Kimmorley's head not been there it would have gone flying over the dead ball line.

That is why we have the rule of knocking the ball into an opponent being a knock on.

Even then you got the feed and couldn't score.

And even then, you went on to win the game anyway!

But, of course, woe is the Roosters.

 

[Jobdog]

Not sure what replays you've watched - the ball was propelled forward by Anasta into Kimmorley without any control. Had Kimmorley's head not been there it would have gone flying over the dead ball line.

That is why we have the rule of knocking the ball into an opponent being a knock on.

Even then you got the feed and couldn't score.

And even then, you went on to win the game anyway!

But, of course, woe is the Roosters.

Dunno about it flying over the deadball line, but it certainly would have been a knock on. In general play if a ball is propelled forward into any part of a defender, it's a knock-on. Not too sure why this should be different just because a try was "supposedly" scored.

 

[mightyboy]

Just watched the replay again. No way in the world Anasta knocks on if Kimmorley isn't there at all. He would have brought his left arm into play and caught the ball cleanly.

Whilst he didn't necessarily have a grip on the ball when it hit Kimmorley, his arm was always in contact with it. There was never a gap between his arm and the ball.

Anyway, when you look at 10 replays, surely benefit of the doubt comes into play?

Yay, I've got my 20 posts now!

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Just watched the replay again. No way in the world Anasta knocks on if Kimmorley isn't there at all. He would have brought his left arm into play and caught the ball cleanly.

Whilst he didn't necessarily have a grip on the ball when it hit Kimmorley, his arm was always in contact with it. There was never a gap between his arm and the ball.

Anyway, when you look at 10 replays, surely benefit of the doubt comes into play?

Yay, I've got my 20 posts now!

Mightyboy, good comment to get your 20th post!

 

[Timmah]

Good comment? It's complete and utter rubbish :lol: The ball would have been knocked on if Kimmorley's head were not there. Anywhere else on the field the same result would've occured.

 

[WaznTheGreat]

The OP is a idiot,the whole first half Gould was saying that the Bulldogs were on top and playing better,how on earth is that biased?

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Good comment? It's complete and utter rubbish :lol: The ball would have been knocked on if Kimmorley's head were not there. Anywhere else on the field the same result would've occured.

Nope

 

[I bleed blue & gold]

Just watched the replay again. No way in the world Anasta knocks on if Kimmorley isn't there at all. He would have brought his left arm into play and caught the ball cleanly.

Whilst he didn't necessarily have a grip on the ball when it hit Kimmorley, his arm was always in contact with it. There was never a gap between his arm and the ball.

Anyway, when you look at 10 replays, surely benefit of the doubt comes into play?

Yay, I've got my 20 posts now!

But he did, and that means KNOCK ON!!!!