Knights v Dragons Post Match Thread

[Big Tim]

That is, definitely off the ground.
That is, not on the ground.... higher than the turf. Airbourne, lifted, aloft, up, above, higher, raised, atop... the front foot was OFF THE GROUND. Hope that clears things up.

If you bothered to read the post as it wsa intended, I state than when you run both feet AT THE SAME TIME are not on the ground.... higher than the turf. Airbourne, lifted, aloft, up, above, higher, raised, atop...

So I am wondering if it is possible that neither of his feet were on the ground when the ball was kicked.... therefore, could he have technically (according to the out of bounds rule) not even have been on the field???

In fact who gives a f**k? You see it your way I will see it mine.

What I did wanna ask people is that many did miss the Barrett tackle in the first half, but did anyone see an incident in the game where Joey was hit fairly high by a Dragons player wearing the 16 jersey? He took Joey to the ground, and from where I was standing looked as though he threw a few forearms at his head. Did anyone else see this? You kinda got a shot on the tv, but they didnt show what happened on the ground.

Did anyone at the game notice this aswell?

 

[Willow]

If you bothered to read the post as it wsa intended, I state than when you run both feet AT THE SAME TIME are not on the ground.... higher than the turf. Airbourne, lifted, aloft, up, above, higher, raised, atop...

Now now, no need to get narky about it. We're playing nice and I was merely having a lend of you MontyPython-esque. But now that you mention it, I recall it was you that had some difficulty is reading my post (remember, watch the video, not the still frames?). But never fear, I wasn't fussed about it.

What you said was:
Hornby's front foot is on the ground, or as near to.

Did you not say that?

I pointed at there no such grey area. The foot was off the ground.

You also said:
My big issue is that it is 6 points against that shouldnt be. 6 points against could cost us a top 2 finish with such a tight competition.

So you thought the try should have been disallowed? Or did you say something different? Is there another way to read that?

For all intents and purposes it looks like you believe Hornby's foot was on the ground when Barrett kicked the ball. Sorry, but that's the way it reads.

So I am wondering if it is possible that neither of his feet were on the ground when the ball was kicked.... therefore, could he have technically (according to the out of bounds rule) not even have been on the field???

Well a player can be over the sideline, batting a ball back in. Both he and the ball can be a metre outside. But as long as neither touch the ground, the ball is still in play.

And offcourse, players do leave the ground when running.

Excuse me for saying that all this is all pretty obvious to most observers. In rugby league, the ruling comes into effect when part of the body comes into is contact with the ground. No offence intended by spelling it out, but there is a feeling here that some people are unaware of the rules of the game.

Naturally, if Hornby planted the front foot down before Barrett kicked, he is offside. He does not miraculously go back onside by leaping in the air. Perhaps this is what you are trying to ask.

In fact who gives a f**k? You see it your way I will see it mine.

Then why even bother to talk about anything?
I'm only stating the facts. Saying 'who gives a f**k' is hardly contributing to the facts.

What I did wanna ask people is that many did miss the Barrett tackle in the first half,

From what I can tell, everyone missed it. The angle during the match didnt show much... that's TV coverage for you. Just shows that the video can be handy after all eh?

How many people missed what happened in the lead up to the Knight's final try?

but did anyone see an incident in the game where Joey was hit fairly high by a Dragons player wearing the 16 jersey? He took Joey to the ground, and from where I was standing looked as though he threw a few forearms at his head. Did anyone else see this? You kinda got a shot on the tv, but they didnt show what happened on the ground.

Did anyone at the game notice this aswell?

LOL. Presumably the only high shots were coming from Dragons players. And Mad Dog was just trying to get to his feet when Toovey copped a kick to the head. And Clint Newton was a victim as well.
Oh... and take it easy, I'm just pointing out that its sometimes rough game... and no team is without their sins.

For example, did you see this?

sh*t happens.

 

[Big Tim]

:roll: :roll:

I love how you say it is obviously a try, and no point arguing, but you are still trying to prove your point. I saw what I saw at the ground, I made my decision. I saw the still image you suggested and it did nothing to change my view. I havent seen the moving footage and dont really care to. I really dont care whether you think we know the rules or not. I started playing the game when I was 6, and have watched as long as I can remember. Assuming I dont know the rules cos I find it difficult to believe that a player hit in the arse with the ball is behind the kicker is ignorant.

You have your opinion and I have mine.... its that simple. You are not going to change it.

What I did wanna ask people is that many did miss the Barrett tackle in the first half, but did anyone see an incident in the game where Joey was hit fairly high by a Dragons player wearing the 16 jersey? He took Joey to the ground, and from where I was standing looked as though he threw a few forearms at his head. Did anyone else see this?

I never said "Dragons players threw all the high shots" I mentoined that there was, what I thought I saw at the ground, watching live, an incident between Joey and another Dragons player on the ground. The people I was sitting around didnt see it, so I am asking if anyone here saw anything or was it a nothing incident.

Next thing you will be telling people that I said a Knights player has never tackled some one high, or even broke the rules.






BTW I could sit here and argue that the shot you refer to bounced up off the ball.... but what I say doesnt matter because you are always right.... :sarcasm:

 

[Willow]

Do you always get this unsettled and aggro when having discussions?

:roll: :roll:

I love how you say it is obviously a try, and no point arguing,

That's just silly. You see, this is what I get for trying to help. lol Would you prefer it if I agreed with everything you said?

but you are still trying to prove your point.

So?

I saw what I saw at the ground, I made my decision.

Wonderful, but as many people have said, there is more to it than what was seen on first viewing.

I saw the still image you suggested and it did nothing to change my view.

And again... I suggested you look at the moving footage.

I havent seen the moving footage and dont really care to.

:lol: Well blow me down if that's not blind devotion to ignorance. So you don't want to even look. OK, I can't help it if you don't want to be set straight.

I really dont care whether you think we know the rules or not.

Who are 'we'?
Its not just my opinion, its also the opinion of the referees and the referee's boss.
Its your choice if you wish to ignore, or avoid, these facts.

I started playing the game when I was 6, and have watched as long as I can remember.

Good for you.

Assuming I dont know the rules cos I find it difficult to believe that a player hit in the arse with the ball is behind the kicker is ignorant.

We're not talking about where the kick went, we're debating about the position of the front foot when the kick took place.
Watch the video tape... if you can bring yourself to do that. Look at where Hornby's front foot (the one which is off the ground) in relation to Barrett's boot going to ball.
Not that you'd ever retract... looks like you're beyond that. But at least you'd find something out for yourself.

You have your opinion and I have mine.... its that simple. You are not going to change it.

Don't worry, I've lost interest in trying to set you straight. You're way too determined to be keep your head in the sand on this one.

I never said "Dragons players threw all the high shots" I mentoined that there was, what I thought I saw at the ground, watching live, an incident between Joey and another Dragons player on the ground. The people I was sitting around didnt see it, so I am asking if anyone here saw anything or was it a nothing incident.

Next thing you will be telling people that I said a Knights player has never tackled some one high, or even broke the rules.

Now why would I say that?

BTW I could sit here and argue that the shot you refer to bounced up off the ball.... but what I say doesnt matter because you are always right.... :sarcasm:

Come on now... what's with all the sulking? LOL

If you read the last bit of my previous post, you might see a hint of sarcasm and a few laughs. No offence, but it seems to be wasted on you. And again, I'm merely pointing out that it is sometimes rough game... and no team is without their sins.

I'm sure you're a wonderful person Big Tim. Hope that brightens up your day.

Cheers.

 

[Misanthrope]

Still trolling, Willow? Honestly - I'd have thought it below you :lol:

 

[Big Tim]

The referees said that Kurt didnt throw a forward pass in the Raiders game... so am I supposed to believe that???

Obviously no one else eaw the incident I was refering to, so I guess it was a nothing incident.

 

[Medievalknight]

Still trolling, Willow? Honestly - I'd have thought it below you :lol:

Just be careful you dont go trolling in dragons site cwb, if u say something that willow doesnt like he removes it from thread and dumps it in a swamp thread.........CHILDISH........CHILDISH......:lol:

 

[RABK]

You are a troll though Dave, i've seen some of your work. ;-)

Swamp thread? :lol: WTF!

 

[Medievalknight]

You are a troll though Dave, i've seen some of your work. ;-)

Swamp thread? :lol: WTF!

And you arent ??? :lol:

 

[RABK]

I get into trouble in the NRL forum, but that's hardly trolling considering it's supposed to be there for all 15 teams fans to discuss topics.