Round 7 V Souths

[Luke Bowden]

All we need is a bit of luck and we will be back in the winners circle.

The calls never seem to go your way when your in a form slump.

I’ve got no doubt we will go on a run, really soon.

 

[TheFrog]

The video ref got it wrong.
That was a text book 8 point try

They could have given it, but I suppose they considered the contact minor. He got the charge, which is just a warning, so that's fair enough. If he does it again they won't go so easy.

 

[Panfa]

Did anyone watch the canterbury cup game last night was keen to know how the 3 flegg boys played lautie blore leniu hope they went well.

 

[Pomoz]

I have expressed my concerns for a number of seasons now our outside backs were an issue lacking in pace, size and power. It will continue to be a problem for us. If Cleary was playing half for the Roosters, Storm and one or two other sides with better outside backs he would certainly look a more complete half.

I think Sauce and DWZ have plenty of power. It takes at least 3 players to bring them to the ground. I'm sure they both bench press hatchbacks, but their speed and agility just aren't there.

 

[Kilkenny]

I think Sauce and DWZ have plenty of power. It takes at least 3 players to bring them to the ground. I'm sure they both bench press hatchbacks, but their speed and agility just aren't there.

Most of the better sides have big mobile fast wingers. The way the game is played our wingers are just to small in addition to the other obvious issues.

 

[GongPanther]

I call last night's effort an improved one from last week's, albeit a ways to go before we are yet to fulfil to our real potential.

 

[ashton]

Mansour should be in NSW Cup offers nothing.
MWZ should be in NSW Cup.
Katoa should be in NSW Cup only good at giving away cheap penalties.
Grant should be in NSW cup.
All our front rowers are average at best.
Egan is improving but is to upright to be a hooker, needs to bend his back and burrow in low when going for the try line.
DWZ defence is not good enough to play centre.
Stephen Crichton should be promoted to NSW Cup ASAP
NRL and NSW Cup sides need a massive clean out.

 

[BxTom]

How many times have we done it? 1 times out of 8 was the stat I saw

So we shouldn't have won the 1991 Grand Final because we had never done it before? What stupidity. All these people saying the stats 'prove it'. They prove nothing. They are only an indication as to the probability of something happening. The probability may not be in our favour, but it certainly isn't impossible.

 

[Luke Bowden]

The video ref got it wrong.
That was a text book 8 point try

Please, it was not a text book 8 point try, get a grip.

It was 50/50 at best and very stupid of him. Certainly not a text point 8 point try.

 

[snickers007]

Please, it was not a text book 8 point try, get a grip.

It was 50/50 at best and very stupid of him. Certainly not a text point 8 point try.

Section 13, Rule 9:
If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try.

Given Katoa has been charged with misconduct (foul play), care to explain how the above law is not applicable?

 

[Luke Bowden]

Section 13, Rule 9:
If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try.

Given Katoa has been charged with misconduct (foul play), care to explain how the above law is not applicable?

Sure,

For Starters, you don’t have the right charge, so allow me to strengthen your argument by saying he was charged with dangerous conduct, not misconduct.

The fact that all of the on field officials and the bunker didn’t believe it to be an 8 point try shows that it wasn’t clear cut. As I said, it was a 50/50.

A committee has taken 30 looks at, lhave decided that he might be guilty of dangerous contact.

Let me ask you this, if he was to be found not guilty or was never charged, would you maintain it was a text book 8 pointer?

 

[age.s]

If the refereeing was done correctly it would have a scrum with our feed at that moment anyway. Seems a bit weird to choose the 8 point try as the moment for the refs to start doing their job properly.

 

[Luke Bowden]

If the refereeing was done correctly it would have a scrum with our feed at that moment anyway. Seems a bit weird to choose the 8 point try as the moment for the refs to start doing their job properly.

That’s true, they did miss a fairly obvious knock on in the lead up.

 

[snickers007]

Sure,

For Starters, you don’t have the right charge, so allow me to strengthen your argument by saying he was charged with dangerous conduct, not misconduct.

The fact that all of the on field officials and the bunker didn’t believe it to be an 8 point try shows that it wasn’t clear cut. As I said, it was a 50/50.

A committee has taken 30 looks at, lhave decided that he might be guilty of dangerous contact.

Let me ask you this, if he was to be found not guilty or was never charged, would you maintain it was a text book 8 pointer?

Misconduct is a catch all term for all chargeable offences, including foul play. The match review committee only deals with misconduct offences.

The on field officials in fact did think it warranted an 8 point try, hence sending it to the video referee to check the contact. My initial comment was that the video referee got it wrong, which they did given the subsequent charge (and pending acceptance of guilt).

The number of viewings to determine the charge doesn't matter, because the video referee has unlimited views as well. I'd understand the on field referee missing the foul play, as they get a single look, at full speed, from a single angle. The video referee has no such excuse.

But anyway, as I said it's a textbook case. There are countless examples of penalties given and players suspended for sliding with knees and feet.

Your inability to argue against the quoted laws of the game indicates to me that you either don't understand the rules, or you don't understand their application within context. I'd hope for your sake that this is due to your bias as a Panthers fan, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. The decision didn't determine the game, and I doubt the final ladder will be impacted by plus/minus 2 points of For/Against. But I expect this incident to get a mention in Annesley's weekly review.

 

[franklin2323]

So we shouldn't have won the 1991 Grand Final because we had never done it before? What stupidity. All these people saying the stats 'prove it'. They prove nothing. They are only an indication as to the probability of something happening. The probability may not be in our favour, but it certainly isn't impossible.

Well what did Halligan kick in the Prelim. 1/6?

So even when you are a top team you need luck. Even more so coming from further back

 

[TheFrog]

Well what did Halligan kick in the Prelim. 1/6?

So even when you are a top team you need luck. Even more so coming from further back

Halligan 1/5, Alexander 4/5. It was the Major Semi Final. Both kickers had penalty kicks in the last 15, Alexander got his with his head spinning after collecting Peter Jackson's hip in the Bears final try (no HIA in '91), Halligan missed from a much easier position.

 

[TheEroticGamer]

How good is it that when the Titans and Sharks were chasing wins at the end of the games against us they're completely allowed to wrestle and stand miles offside when they were pressuring us in our 20. But when we're in that position we get penalised for, uh, tackling Burgess?

 

[Kilkenny]

It would make for interesting reading a breakdown on the penalties for and against in terms of the infringements, on what tackle, whereabouts on the field etc etc. there is no doubt some penalties are far more valuable than others, particularly those when you are struggling to get out of your own 20 metre zone or one on the last tackle giving you another set. There was a game last season where we getting hammered in the penalty count, then received 4 to 5 penalties back to back early in the tackle count when we were aleardy on the attack and I remember thinking at the time all it achieved was giving a more balanced look to the overall count.

 

[forby]

But we were told that referees don’t look at penalty counts or change the way they ref to even up penalty counts.

 

[Luke Bowden]

Misconduct is a catch all term for all chargeable offences, including foul play. The match review committee only deals with misconduct offences.

The on field officials in fact did think it warranted an 8 point try, hence sending it to the video referee to check the contact. My initial comment was that the video referee got it wrong, which they did given the subsequent charge (and pending acceptance of guilt).

The number of viewings to determine the charge doesn't matter, because the video referee has unlimited views as well. I'd understand the on field referee missing the foul play, as they get a single look, at full speed, from a single angle. The video referee has no such excuse.

But anyway, as I said it's a textbook case. There are countless examples of penalties given and players suspended for sliding with knees and feet.

Your inability to argue against the quoted laws of the game indicates to me that you either don't understand the rules, or you don't understand their application within context. I'd hope for your sake that this is due to your bias as a Panthers fan, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. The decision didn't determine the game, and I doubt the final ladder will be impacted by plus/minus 2 points of For/Against. But I expect this incident to get a mention in Annesley's weekly review.

It’s not a text book case, as the bunker said, his knees contacted his arm and didn’t constitute dangerous contact.

You can easily make an argument as to why it’s not dangerous contact.

Like I said, it’s a 50/50 and not clear cut.