Knights V's Cowboys Post Match Talk.

[Grantwhy]

The rule states Kaz that if there were two players in the original tackle and one drops off it is still a two man tackle, the ref said that Kennedy had broken through the tackle and even though kKennedy went to play the ball Rauhi stripped the ball, according to the "Experts" on todays footy show those cases are left to the refs discretion.

By ABC radio the correct ruling was applied.

Plus ref didn't call held.

Thats bullsh*t Kaz. Rauhihi has put a hand on a player on the ground. That is held and classed as a tackle. If another player came in to assist while the player was on the ground, then that would be a virtual flop and would be a penalty. He has then stripped the player of the ball.

That is a penalty. That illegal play was the start of the end for the Knights. That and the f***ed refereeing in the defence both ways.

I'll see your bullsh*t and raise you a Pffft .

The Knights player had broken through the tackle of the first Cowboy player and was on his knees and getting up. Then Rauhihi got to him. I have no doublt that, if instead of being stripped of the ball, the Knights player had managed to get a pass away that the Ref would NOT of called it a penalty for passing after the tackle was completed.

Anyone agree?



Oh, and having watched the game on tape, a fair number (about half I think) of the penalties against the Knights were not for holding down in the play the ball (although there were 2-3 of them as well). To me it seemed a majority of the penalties were for Flops. That might of been the 'rule for the week' or Robbie O's "It's Hot" excuse might of put the ref offside. I'm pretty sure the Cowboys weren't doing the Flops the Knights were and so the Ref couldn't even it up through those.

 

[bluesbreaker]

Kaz, Grantwhy, ABC radio, the referee.

Learn the rules.

If 2 men are in the tackle at any stage, regardless if they have dropped off, it's a 2 man tackle, and the ball cannot be stripped. I agree with Grantwhy in that i don't believe the tackle was completed, but the strip should still have been a penalty to the Kights.

 

[thuganomics]

It was a penalty, bluesbreaker is right.
Although 1st time i saw it I thought it was a try.

 

[Grantwhy]

Not according to the rules

It's the last 2 sentences

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,9834000-23214,00.html

Rauhihi's legal strip show
By Bill Harrigan
June 14, 2004

WE saw Cowboys forward Paul Rauhihi make a one on one steal in the game against Newcastle on Saturday night then run 40 metres to score a try. Protests of an unfair strip from Knights players fell on deaf ears and rightly so.

The rule is confusing for players, spectators and is a grey area for referees and should be looked at.

Currently the rule says a one on one strip is OK. If two or more players get involved the ball cannot be stolen.

If two or more defenders are involved and they fall off the attacking player but one hangs on then it is still regarded as having two in the tackle and the ball cannot be stolen.

Confused? You should be. Now if the final player falls off the attacker and no one is left touching him then it is deemed a new play.

That's what happened as Rauhihi raced in making it a new one on one situation and a fair try.

The Daily Telegraph

 

[Alex28]

but you cant steal the ball off a player who is on the ground due to the result of a tackle - no matter whether the tackler has let go or not. matt kennedy was still on the ground - the strip was illegal.

 

[Billybob]

Grasping at straws boys !!!

look you guys got beaten into the ground by the better team on the night
grantwhy will back me up here as we are cowboys supporters we always get the bad calls and Lyons hates us so your team must have really sucked bad to get beaten on penalties by the cowboys with Lyons in charge

did you guys see the foward pass he let you guys have last year to beat us
now that is a bad call that one cost us the game
stop complaining and remember your team can only get better

oh and you ladies look lovely in cowboys colours will you be betting the roosters for avatars this time lol


and how does our prop outrun the "pillbox" dont worry about the strip worry that your fullback is slower then our prop

 

[Kaz]

Not according to the rules

It's the last 2 sentences

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,9834000-23214,00.html

Rauhihi's legal strip show
By Bill Harrigan
June 14, 2004

WE saw Cowboys forward Paul Rauhihi make a one on one steal in the game against Newcastle on Saturday night then run 40 metres to score a try. Protests of an unfair strip from Knights players fell on deaf ears and rightly so.

The rule is confusing for players, spectators and is a grey area for referees and should be looked at.

Currently the rule says a one on one strip is OK. If two or more players get involved the ball cannot be stolen.

If two or more defenders are involved and they fall off the attacking player but one hangs on then it is still regarded as having two in the tackle and the ball cannot be stolen.

Confused? You should be. Now if the final player falls off the attacker and no one is left touching him then it is deemed a new play.

That's what happened as Rauhihi raced in making it a new one on one situation and a fair try.

The Daily Telegraph

I think they changed it to this rule last year.

Rauhihi must read the rule changes. :lol:

but you cant steal the ball off a player who is on the ground due to the result of a tackle - no matter whether the tackler has let go or not. matt kennedy was still on the ground - the strip was illegal.

He was not on the ground. He was on his feet

 

[Grantwhy]

but you cant steal the ball off a player who is on the ground due to the result of a tackle - no matter whether the tackler has let go or not. matt kennedy was still on the ground - the strip was illegal.

He was not on the ground. He was on his feet

Sorry Kaz. Kennedy was on his knees and in the action of getting back up.

That still doesn't count as "on the ground" though Alex28.

 

[Kaz]

but you cant steal the ball off a player who is on the ground due to the result of a tackle - no matter whether the tackler has let go or not. matt kennedy was still on the ground - the strip was illegal.

He was not on the ground. He was on his feet

Sorry Kaz. Kennedy was on his knees and in the action of getting back up.

That still doesn't count as "on the ground" though Alex28.

OK

But one thing is for sure, if Kennedy had proper control of the ball, Rauhihi wouldn't have been able to steal it.

 

[Gooba]

i hate making excuses for a loss... but im just watching the replay now... the ref absoulutly killed us with flop penalties!! i have never seen a match where so many penalties have been given for the flop!!! my goodness if a ref did that in a match of footy down here (group 6) he wouldnt be able to leave the ground alive!!! this brings me back to when i think 3 or 4 parra players got sin binned in a match last year. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: #-o #-o #-o

 

[Grantwhy]

From what i saw of the replay in the 2nd half the Knights were doing flops while the Cowboys weren't.

You'd think that after the first couple of penalties for it they would stop doing them ;-).

Yes, the Knights were penalised a lot more than the Cowboys, but the Cowboys were listening to the Ref more i think (and at half time Grahem Murry specifically told his players to watch out for the Ref trying to even up the penalties [2-6 at halftime?] and to not give him the chance).

By halftime the Knights should of known that Steve 'Shane' Lyons was cracking down on flops/slowing down the play but they kept on trying to get away with them.

Don't forget that the Cowboys have changed their ways and don't give away as many penalties as they used to ;-).

 

[MC DUI]

You guys still talking about that boring-arse match :roll:

Anyways I'm pissing this dirty ugly cowgirls logo out of my sig today as the Knights are playing today.