Shaun Johnson's Match Winner

[POPEYE]

The important thing is Johnson finally ran to the line, if he started the game the way he finished it would have been no contest . . . crikey, the Warriors need an Austin type to think so Shaun can simply do what he does best

 

[El Diablo]

#nrlincrisis

sack Dave Smith and John Grant

 

[Canard]

The mental giants that think the playground rules of a shepherd apply to grown ups sport

 

[Howdy]

Great try, eat shit op

 

[Schuster86]

Clearly runs behind Simon Mannering in the movement. Shouldn't have been awarded. Didn't gain an advantage but it's illegal.

I said after the tigers match winner against Canberra was taken off Brooks we'll see it happen 50 times this year and it won't get pulled up once. Referees again picking and choosing when to pull something up.

Are you kidding yourself, this happens 20+ time a game, it even gets allowed in video ref decisions following tries scored. It didn't impead anyone and the try was warranted!!! What's the point in even pointing this out????

 

[Warriorsoul]

Easily half the Cronulla defensive line hadnt made it back the ten metres, why should the attacking team be penalised for "disadvantaging" defenders who had no right to be there anyway?

 

[Vic Mackey]

Are you kidding yourself, this happens 20+ time a game, it even gets allowed in video ref decisions following tries scored. It didn't impead anyone and the try was warranted!!! What's the point in even pointing this out????

Mate I'm agreeing it should be a try, common sense says so. However the rules aren't common sense and a few weeks ago the video refs decided to bring out this rule. The reason given behind the (what would have been match winning) tigers no try was that the second you run behind a player, interfere or not, it's a penalty. Shaun Johnson clearly ran behind simon Mannering. If they're going to be consistent it's a black and white no try.

What shits me is I said we won't see it pulled up again this year, and we haven't.

 

[adamkungl]

Vic people are happy to ignore inconsistency unless it happens to their team. Then it's outrageous. The great minds of LU have spoken.

I'm with you. The tigers one should have been a certain try, they were robbed. It is almost definitely the only time we'll see the rule enforced in 2015.

 

[God-King Dean]

I think if it went to vid ref, it would have been no try. They always ping shepards.

But it wasn't. Vic has a fair point.

 

[some11]

The distance between himself and Mannering saved him since the defender did bump into Mannering.

 

[Bronco Rob]

For one the term 'shepherd' should never be mentioned again. The term 'obstruction' is the only term that needs to be used and if no defensive player is impeded or obstructed then no dramas. A good dose of common sense was used last night and always should be used in determining obstruction calls.

 

[Jason Maher]

He was so far behind Mannering there is zero chance anyone could have been impeded.

 

[Jaegerex]

For one the term 'shepherd' should never be mentioned again. The term 'obstruction' is the only term that needs to be used and if no defensive player is impeded or obstructed then no dramas. A good dose of common sense was used last night and always should be used in determining obstruction calls.

No arguments there, and as a Sharks fan I'm not going to say it wasn't a try. It was just a farce against the tigers a few weeks ago that they had Brook's try disallowed due to Farah going behind a decoy runner that had passed through the defensive line already.
People were claiming Shepard and it is a penalty every day of the week, yet week after week it is completely overlooked, as realistically it has evolved into Obstruction.

I think a few people people are thinking this thread is made by a Shark whiner and claiming 'we wuz robbed' when that couldn't be further from the truth. It was a try, but it is evidence of a point made by Vic when Brook's had a tried disallowed a couple weeks back.

 

[Jason Maher]

The OP is a Tigers fan still butthurt about the Brooks incident several weeks later.

 

[bottle]

I think the intention is to match the 50 times we see exactly the same thing this year with mentioning it 50 times on the forum. Must be getting close.

 

[Vic Mackey]

My intention is to mention it as many times as we heard dragons fans bitching about the fcking bell in the storm game last year. Only 7 billion more goes and I'm there

 

[bottle]

Did you have to mention that f**king bell? I hate that f**king bell. Don't mention that f**king bell again.
f**king bell.

 

[Ulysseus]

f**k that bell and the referee - who is the official source of time and managed to f**k it up - for eternity.
I said after Saints beat Storm later that year "its the second time they have beaten them in an 80 minute contest this year - only this time they got the points for it"

 

[Meth]

Thank goodness it wasn't disallowed on a technicality. I know it's a bit more subjective and that there have been instances where tries that anyone who has played Rugby League knows are fair, have been disallowed, creating an unfortunate precedent…but Mannering had no effect on the play. Should be a try any day of the week, and made an otherwise terrible game memorable for dramatic theatre.

The tendency to disallow tries dogmatically on technicalities also leads to defenders who have no chance of making tackles finding the nearest opposing player to collapse into in hope of attracting a no-try ruling. Not a good look for the game.

 

[Canard]

For one the term 'shepherd' should never be mentioned again. The term 'obstruction' is the only term that needs to be used and if no defensive player is impeded or obstructed then no dramas. A good dose of common sense was used last night and always should be used in determining obstruction calls.

FYI the term shepherd has never existed in the League rule book.