R24 Sun - Warriors v Manly Warringah

[Iafeta]

AFAIK, a decoy runner has to run through the line without touching a defender. I think that's fair. Watmough seemed to do that, that's where it starts to become a bit dodgy in yesterday's decision.

 

[circling eagle]

Could have gone either way, but I thought it was a try....... That said, this wasnt the concern for me, it was the way we seemed to drop our bundle after that, calls will go against you in this game, but you gotta get over it, especially coming into the finals.

 

[Rovelli]

First try after halftime was always going to be crucial.

Our try (Gatis) came out of nothing really.

 

[c_eagle]

If Whatmough stopped before the line, I'd have no dramas, but becuase he ran through the line, then it becomes a 50/50 call.

Uh, so it's better if he stops before the line and acts as a human shield? Running through the line (without initiating physical contact) gets you out of the way.

 

[Clock watcher]

The new rule encourages the decoy runner to run through the defensive line without disrupting it.
If the runner stops before the line then the ball carrier will run around him creating a blatant sheppard.
If he stops in the line then he will definately be disrupting the defensive line - penalty
If he runs through the line without disrupting it, untouched then it is a fair play
Warriors made a bad decision in defense, plain and simple, that was a try.

Warriors played to the refs whistle better and therefore deserved to win.
Congrats and welcome officiallt to finals 07'

 

[byrne_rovelli_fan82]

I thought it was a try and was rather surprised it wasn't given (but putting my Warriors bias on I was happy it was denied), as I've said with those decisions going to the defending team it is reward a bad defensive miss read which I think Koopu, Witty and Swann all did. The orginal gap I think was made because Koopu rushed out of the line (do that at your own peril I guess), then the decoy runs through without actually making contact with Witty and Swann and they were going in the same direction the decoy runner came from (so he's sucked them in). Space there, ball receiver gets it and runs through.

In the Raiders v Warriors match, didn't one of the commentators say if the ball is passed beind the decoy runner it's not an obsutrction? Only if the player with the ball runs behind that decoy then it's obstruction? If that's the simple version then yes a try it should have been.

But bad decisions like this have happened all year, and Manly let it bother them too much, even when they were denied that try they still had every chance to score points and win the game but didn't.

 

[Iafeta]

Just listened to Finch on NRL on Fox, the Watmough try was unanamously voted no try in the review meeting. It was decided by the coaches earlier in the year that that particular play would be an obstruction unless there was depth in the pass to move the 'sweeping' runner away from a close proximity from the ball player and decoy runner. Blame the coaches on that one, frankly, after how he explained it, I agree entirely. It didn't look right on game day, and it still doesn't look right now, it only gets positive reviews because of previous errors made vy video referees this year where they've interpreted that one wrongly. That was one interpreted right by how the coaches wanted it.

 

[lockyno1]

Yep, and Finch is dead right on this one. It just looked TOO EASY, and when that is the case, you have to think something is wrong with the play!

 

[effnic]

Finch and Lockyno1 saying it was a no try is proof enough that it was clearly a try. The try scorers ass obviously didnt meet locky's standard, if Halden scored im sure it would be a green light from you.

 

[lockyno1]

Finch and Lockyno1 saying it was a no try is proof enough that it was clearly a try. The try scorers ass obviously didnt meet locky's standard, if Halden scored im sure it would be a green light from you.

Being cute would not have come into it in this instance! Although Halden did play well (i wish he got dacked though, hehe). But in this case it was just about the play, and the play by Orford just looked too easy, and correctly was ruled no try as the pass did not travel enough distance to allow the defence to recover from the obstruction person.

 

[effnic]

Go back to Jarrod Hayne's try against us at parra stadium how f**king easy did that look but it was a fair try and i agree with that decision, so it doesnt matter how easy it look gaybo, Manly's try was a fair try and 90% of the nrl can see it the rest including you are just blind and know f**k all about rugby league.

 

[lockyno1]

And Jarrd Hayne's try was deemed a wrong decision by Finch. 2 wrongs do not equal a right. Fair dinkum, it was a clear no try, and that was both of them- Hayne's and Robertson's. Just becuase Hayne's was given doesn't mean Robertson's should be given!

 

[effnic]

# Hayne's try was a try
# Robbo's try was a try
# Your a complete f**kwit who knows sh*t about rugby league.

 

[Iafeta]

Go back to Jarrod Hayne's try against us at parra stadium how f**king easy did that look but it was a fair try and i agree with that decision, so it doesnt matter how easy it look gaybo, Manly's try was a fair try and 90% of the nrl can see it the rest including you are just blind and know f**k all about rugby league.

Robert Finch admitted the Jarryd Hayne try was incorrect, it should have been a no try and this was agreed to in their review meeting.

effnic, the problem you have in your argument is the coaches agreed to the interpretation, in fact requested it, on the Robertson try. The way the coaches called for it was the way it was interpreted. No try. Fair call. In respect to the Hayne one, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Iafeta]

Finch and Lockyno1 saying it was a no try is proof enough that it was clearly a try. The try scorers ass obviously didnt meet locky's standard, if Halden scored im sure it would be a green light from you.

What about the coaches agereing pre season it would be interpreted as no try?

I'm sure the bloke who blew up at the officials is one of those too.

Which leaves one extermely doubtful try in that game, a try to Chris Hicks off a Michael Robertson forward pass. I know whose coach should be blowing up, the only one Hasler should be blowing up at is Orford for failing to find the line on a crucial penalty kick, and throwing two ripping intercepts.

 

[CharlieF]

What about the coaches agereing pre season it would be interpreted as no try?

I'm sure the bloke who blew up at the officials is one of those too.

Which leaves one extermely doubtful try in that game, a try to Chris Hicks off a Michael Robertson forward pass. I know whose coach should be blowing up, the only one Hasler should be blowing up at is Orford for failing to find the line on a crucial penalty kick, and throwing two ripping intercepts.

They told Manly not to complain about the Jaryd Hayne try, because it was correct. Then we get a similar incident this time its Manly that score from it, and guess what? Its a no try and the Jaryd Hayne one, which Bill harrigan said was a fair try at the time and originally Finch said it was a try, all of a sudden becomes no try. So what happens is, Harrigan gets let off because it was right, and Ward gets let off because it was right.

That is poor form.

And just to add, I don't think Hasler was to worried about losing that game. He was more concerned about the inconsistencies.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

"The coaches agreed to this" is almost as convenient as "someone put it in my pocket and I forgot"

The refs coach, Harrigan, said it was a clear try, and it was, seems they can't even allign their stories correctly up at ref HQ

 

[Iafeta]

Harrigan thinks everything is a try ;-)

Unless you're a Parramatta player up at Newie, then that's a sin binning offence.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

You forgot Billy's bias against Manly

 

[CharlieF]

You forgot Billy's bias against Manly

The only ref that has ever sin-binned "The Beaver".