So is it Catt Utai or is he being coached to lay down?

[Chook]

Mate, you really should look at what you say, it's really sad.

I can hit you as soft as I like in the larynx and I guarantee you'll have trouble breathing for a few moments. Minimal force means sh*t. You can still be hurt by the softest tackle around, and where Morley hit Utai, the bloke would have struggled for breath briefly. You keep pursuing this sad and pathetic argument after your team won, your player was cleared and finally you got your so-called "vengeance" for last years GF loss. So why are you still talking? Get back to ELC and get on the piss, that's what most Easts fans would have done. :roll:

I know what I say is sad dodge, it means Bulldog players are divers. They either stay down of their own accord or they are coached to stay down, either way it's a sad revelation.

Chook.

cmon Chook get over it!!! anyway, even of they do dive they will only get a penalty if they have done something illegal. I see no problem with it.

Or do you just have a problem when someone does it against the Roosters??? with the amount of moaning you have been doing it seems that way.

I do have a problem with this Garts, especially if this diving is something that is being coached into the players?

After six rounds Morley has been on report twice and sent from the field once and in all those incidents he hasn't had a case to answer for? Yet in all three incidents the players receiving Morley's tackle stayed down only to get right back up again after he was placed on report/sent off and they received a penalty.

You can put that down to coincidence if you like and you probably will as it doesn't affect one of your strike players. But if coaches are coaching their players to take dives if they are agreesively tackled by certain players then that's just bullshit.

Chook.

 

[Garts]

Poor Chook, those poor Roosters are so hard done by arnt they.

 

[JJ]

Chook - I don't know if players are being coached to stay down or not - Simon Woolford has done it for ages....

But, it's naive to think that if clubs are instructing players to stay down that the Roosters wouldn't be doing it too - I mean they haven't missed a trick in the last few years (that's meant to be a compliment)

The real problem is not players staying down, but the possibility of referees letting events that happen after the fact cloud their judgement - if there is an inkling of that happening, then players will milk it for all it's worth!

 

[Shifty]

I'll be the first to admit that Morley had a technique problem and that the tackle on Utai was high. But there's no evidence to support the claim that Utai was injured? He stayed on and played on. There was no blood, no scar, no need for a doctor, no charges, no case to answer for! The only evidence that Utai was injured was that he stayed down...just until Morley was sent and then he got back up again.

However there's more then enough evidence to support the fact that Utai is a diver.

Chook.

and my response above remains - SO?


Morley screwed up first, and the ref second. The penalty was justified, the sending off not. If Utai was acting, so!!!! The ref should not be influenced by that - your beef should be with the ref!

The sending off was justified even if you don't feel it was appropriate.

The referee gave the Roosters a warning that the situation wasn't going to be allowed to get out of hand and that they had to control themselves. Haing said that he specifically warned them that if they did not settle down someone would be sent off.

Morley then sprinted a considerable distance and committed an offence. It may have been accidental, but he charged up and left the ground to make the tackle. It may have been soft, but it was an offence that is all that was needed.

In the referee's opinion, Morley had overstepped the line and that is all the justification he needed. Simpkins followed due process by explaining the situation and warning Ricketson that any more and a player would be sent. When an offence was committed he followed through.

Under these circumstances people may voice their disagreement with the referee's decision, but they should not be criticising him for being wrong. You are wrong to do so.

You may not think it was appropriate, fair, or consistent with what other officials would do, but it was justified and the referee was within his rights.

 

[JJ]

Well, I haven't watched the game in detail - if that's all correct, then chook has no legitimate beef with anyone

 

[Shifty]

Stuart is treading a very fine line with his criticism. If the NRL allow him to continue they risk undermining the authority of the officials. They have warned him for now, but if he continues his current stance through the media strong action may need to be taken.

Stuart is not justified and he needs to accept the referee's decision, shut-up or step down.

 

[Chook]

Chook - I don't know if players are being coached to stay down or not - Simon Woolford has done it for ages....

But, it's naive to think that if clubs are instructing players to stay down that the Roosters wouldn't be doing it too - I mean they haven't missed a trick in the last few years (that's meant to be a compliment)

The real problem is not players staying down, but the possibility of referees letting events that happen after the fact cloud their judgement - if there is an inkling of that happening, then players will milk it for all it's worth!

There's a big difference between milking a penalty and being coached to take a dive JJ, and in my opinion Utai took a huge dive on Friday night as evident by points I made earlier. And until I see evidence to the contrary I can state that the Roosters don't coach their players to take dives! Although I've seen Walker try and milk everything including my mother in law!

Chook.

 

[Garts]

Bloody Stuart annoys me.

I love his reported stance of not giving media interviews if officials can not be criticised. Please Ricky dont tease me that way, you will just get my hopes up. now we just need Gould to take the same stance.

 

[bulldog]

Ok what is the compression factor of your 120kg object? What is it's surface area at the point of impact? What is it's density, mass, is it rotating etc etc. If you want to talk physics brainstem, let's go. Otherwise let's just stick with the facts and leave the hypotheticals alone?

Talking out of your arse doesn't help your cause either, compression factors in physics are for fluids and gases you idiot :lol: , rotation in this instance is irrelevant as well.

The only sense you made was asking about mass and density. I'll answer by saying Morley is very large and dense.

P.S. Chook your sig should read hypocrisy not hypocracy

 

[Chook]

I'll be the first to admit that Morley had a technique problem and that the tackle on Utai was high. But there's no evidence to support the claim that Utai was injured? He stayed on and played on. There was no blood, no scar, no need for a doctor, no charges, no case to answer for! The only evidence that Utai was injured was that he stayed down...just until Morley was sent and then he got back up again.

However there's more then enough evidence to support the fact that Utai is a diver.

Chook.

and my response above remains - SO?


Morley screwed up first, and the ref second. The penalty was justified, the sending off not. If Utai was acting, so!!!! The ref should not be influenced by that - your beef should be with the ref!

The sending off was justified even if you don't feel it was appropriate.

The referee gave the Roosters a warning that the situation wasn't going to be allowed to get out of hand and that they had to control themselves. Haing said that he specifically warned them that if they did not settle down someone would be sent off.

Morley then sprinted a considerable distance and committed an offence. It may have been accidental, but he charged up and left the ground to make the tackle. It may have been soft, but it was an offence that is all that was needed.

In the referee's opinion, Morley had overstepped the line and that is all the justification he needed. Simpkins followed due process by explaining the situation and warning Ricketson that any more and a player would be sent. When an offence was committed he followed through.

Under these circumstances people may voice their disagreement with the referee's decision, but they should not be criticising him for being wrong. You are wrong to do so.

You may not think it was appropriate, fair, or consistent with what other officials would do, but it was justified and the referee was within his rights.

A few corrections Shifty!

Morley sprinted as it was a kick chase, however his feet were firmly planted when Utai stepped him.

Simkins warning to the players were in fact that someone would have a rest ie - sin bin, not be sent off. And the warning was for both sides, not just the Roosters as it was directly following the biff between Bra Boy and Ricko.

Simkins was wrong! If he was right the match review committee would have suspended Morley for the offence, which they did not.

Chook.

 

[Chook]

Ok what is the compression factor of your 120kg object? What is it's surface area at the point of impact? What is it's density, mass, is it rotating etc etc. If you want to talk physics brainstem, let's go. Otherwise let's just stick with the facts and leave the hypotheticals alone?

Talking out of your arse doesn't help your cause either, compression factors in physics are for fluids and gases you idiot :lol: , rotation in this instance is irrelevant as well.

The only sense you made was asking about mass and density. I'll answer by saying Morley is very large and dense.

He didn't identify the object. It could've been a 120kg bag of grease from your hair? Or 120kg bucket of shit from your brains? Think outside your little square.

Chook.

 

[Misty Bee]

I never said the Roosters didn't milk penalties, I asked for specific incidents of Roosters taking a dive. If you can't supply that Misty than blow it out your arse.

How about Russell Fairfax in the '75 Amco Cup final? :roll:

Or Chris Walker whenever an opposition winger runs at him?

Mate, as I said, they all do it. Maybe you should try and prove otherwise, rathjer than stick by rediculous "my club is tougher than your club" statements.

 

[Shifty]

My turn Chook, a few clarifications.

Morley jumped to make the tackle and his feet were certainly not firmly planted when he made contact. That doesn't really matter that much as the tackle was spectacular more than it was heavy contact. It was high and therefore it was an offence.

Simpkins didn't specify whether he would send a player off or to the sinbin for 10 minutes. He didn't have to, he took the action he deemed appropriate and it was within his authority to send him off. Morley doesn't commit an offence, he doesn't get sent off.

Simpkins was NOT wrong. The match review committee's decision doesn't come into it, they deemed it not to be worthy of report that doesn't mean he didn't commit an offence. Simpkins followed due process and acted within his authority, you have no case. You are wrong.

btw.....in the consistency stakes, where a player commits an offence and is sent off that should be considered appropriate punishment, or at least be taken into account. IMO it is more appropriate to send a player off who has caused injury through fowl ;-) play than to suspend them.

btw....

 

[Chook]

My turn Chook, a few clarifications.

Morley jumped to make the tackle and his feet were certainly not firmly planted when he made contact. That doesn't really matter that much as the tackle was spectacular more than it was heavy contact. It was high and therefore it was an offence.

Have you actually watched it Shifty? Morley did not jump to make the tackle. His first point of contact was Utai's shoulder, which by the way is not an offence.

Simpkins didn't specify whether he would send a player off or to the sinbin for 10 minutes. He didn't have to, he took the action he deemed appropriate and it was within his authority to send him off. Morley doesn't commit an offence, he doesn't get sent off.

And he was wrong! The action Simkins took was inappropriate to the incident.

"Referees coach Robert Finch said that Simpkins had admitted he could have handled the situation a little better.

"I think we agreed the process in which he was sent off ... he probably should have used all resources available for making the decision," Finch said.

"He could have gone and checked the injured player, had a look at it on the screen, got info from the video ref on it and then made a decision."

A veiled attempt at admitting error, but an admission none the less!

Simpkins was NOT wrong. The match review committee's decision doesn't come into it, they deemed it not to be worthy of report that doesn't mean he didn't commit an offence. Simpkins followed due process and acted within his authority, you have no case. You are wrong.

Simkins got it wrong Shifty, dead wrong!!

btw.....in the consistency stakes, where a player commits an offence and is sent off that should be considered appropriate punishment, or at least be taken into account. IMO it is more appropriate to send a player off who has caused injury through fowl ;-) play than to suspend them.

btw....

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Chook.

 

[melon....]

Chook...dont bother. A Canterbury supporter told me he can tell when Utai is running scared by the way he returns the football. If he returns straight he is feeling good. If he runs sideways from kick returns like he did all Friday night, he is scared shitless. I dont know if he's a cat, but he definitely dogged it on Friday!!! LOL.

 

[Shifty]

Have you actually watched it Shifty? Morley did not jump to make the tackle. His first point of contact was Utai's shoulder, which by the way is not an offence.

His feet left the ground when he swung his forearm at Utai's head, if that's not jumping what is it? If there was contact with the shoulder it was very minimal, but even if there was it doesn't change the fact that he contacted the head and committed an offence.

Also you are taking the tackle in isolation, his action of sprinting up (regardless of the fact it was a kick return) and having plenty of time to get his body height down.

As minor as it may have been it was an illegal tackle. Morley crossed the boundary that had been set. He went outside the rules and knew what to expect.

And he was wrong! The action Simkins took was inappropriate to the incident.

"Referees coach Robert Finch said that Simpkins had admitted he could have handled the situation a little better.

"I think we agreed the process in which he was sent off ... he probably should have used all resources available for making the decision," Finch said.

"He could have gone and checked the injured player, had a look at it on the screen, got info from the video ref on it and then made a decision."

A veiled attempt at admitting error, but an admission none the less!

Finch is of the opinion that Simpkins could have handled it better. That's his opinion, but Simpkins did everything according to the rules and his authority. He did not have to seek judgement from anyone else.

Simkins got it wrong Shifty, dead wrong!!

You are entitled to disagree with the appropriateness, the fairness, the consistency, etc but you cannot support your claim that he was wrong to send Morley off. You are wrong if you think you can. Accept the decision and move on.

You've got nothing.

btw......the way the Chooks responded to everything that went against them on the night was very impressive, on the night the Dogs dropped their heads when calls went against them. That was the difference, the referee hasn't cost them the game and in the end Morley hasn't been suspended. Try and be satisfied with that.

Maybe Ricky should follow the lead of his players reaction to it on the night

 

[Dogaholic]

Morley hit me flush on the chin: Utai
By Steve Mascord

New Zealand and Bulldogs winger Matt Utai said yesterday that Sydney Rooster Adrian Morley had hit him "flush on the chin" last Friday, splitting the inside of his mouth open against his bottom teeth.

Second-rower Morley's challenge on Utai during the Roosters' 29-16 win over the Bulldogs at Telstra Stadium has been the game's main talking point since, with the Briton escaping a charge, despite having been sent off.

After the Kiwis trained at Gold Coast Stadium yesterday, Utai said he had no opinion on whether Morley should have been charged but rejected suggestions he took a "dive" to get a penalty.

"Morley actually got me flush on the chin, he actually split my mouth inside, all my bottom teeth," Utai told the Herald.

His comments conflicted with those of the NRL's match-review committee, which ruled on Monday there had been "minimal force" and the initial contact had been with Utai's left shoulder.

Utai insisted he had not stayed down to get a penalty but said such accusations were "part of the game; you get what you expect".

Asked what he thought of Morley escaping a charge, Utai said: "I don't think nothing [of it]. It's not my job to charge him."

An unrepentant Morley, meanwhile, last night claimed it was common for players to dive in the hope of gaining penalties.

"It's very disappointing ... just the way the players stay down as if they are injured and they get up and take the first drive in the set of six," Morley told Channel Seven.

"I don't think that's very good sportsmanship. You know I certainly wouldn't do it. It's not in the spirit of the game."

Of his sending off, Morley said: "I thought it was a hard call. That's why the Roosters signed me, for my aggressive style."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/League/Morley-hit-me-flush-on-the-chin-Utai/2005/04/19/1113854201351.html

 

[Chook]

Have you actually watched it Shifty? Morley did not jump to make the tackle. His first point of contact was Utai's shoulder, which by the way is not an offence.

His feet left the ground when he swung his forearm at Utai's head, if that's not jumping what is it? If there was contact with the shoulder it was very minimal, but even if there was it doesn't change the fact that he contacted the head and committed an offence.

Also you are taking the tackle in isolation, his action of sprinting up (regardless of the fact it was a kick return) and having plenty of time to get his body height down.

As minor as it may have been it was an illegal tackle. Morley crossed the boundary that had been set. He went outside the rules and knew what to expect.

And he was wrong! The action Simkins took was inappropriate to the incident.

"Referees coach Robert Finch said that Simpkins had admitted he could have handled the situation a little better.

"I think we agreed the process in which he was sent off ... he probably should have used all resources available for making the decision," Finch said.

"He could have gone and checked the injured player, had a look at it on the screen, got info from the video ref on it and then made a decision."

A veiled attempt at admitting error, but an admission none the less!

Finch is of the opinion that Simpkins could have handled it better. That's his opinion, but Simpkins did everything according to the rules and his authority. He did not have to seek judgement from anyone else.

Stop trying to re-write the article Shifty. Simkins admitted his error! "Simpkins had admitted he could have handled the situation a little better." Finch is just agreeing with him.

Simkins got it wrong Shifty, dead wrong!!

You are entitled to disagree with the appropriateness, the fairness, the consistency, etc but you cannot support your claim that he was wrong to send Morley off. You are wrong if you think you can. Accept the decision and move on.

You've got nothing.

An admission of error by Simkins, match committee declares Morley has no case to answer for, every league expert saying the send off was wrong, no fine for Stuart for blasting Simkins over the decision and you say I've got nothing? Everyone else has declared the decision was wrong Shifty, why can't you?

Chook.

 

[Chook]

Morley hit me flush on the chin: Utai
By Steve Mascord

New Zealand and Bulldogs winger Matt Utai said yesterday that Sydney Rooster Adrian Morley had hit him "flush on the chin" last Friday, splitting the inside of his mouth open against his bottom teeth.

Second-rower Morley's challenge on Utai during the Roosters' 29-16 win over the Bulldogs at Telstra Stadium has been the game's main talking point since, with the Briton escaping a charge, despite having been sent off.

After the Kiwis trained at Gold Coast Stadium yesterday, Utai said he had no opinion on whether Morley should have been charged but rejected suggestions he took a "dive" to get a penalty.

"Morley actually got me flush on the chin, he actually split my mouth inside, all my bottom teeth," Utai told the Herald.

His comments conflicted with those of the NRL's match-review committee, which ruled on Monday there had been "minimal force" and the initial contact had been with Utai's left shoulder.

Utai insisted he had not stayed down to get a penalty but said such accusations were "part of the game; you get what you expect".

Asked what he thought of Morley escaping a charge, Utai said: "I don't think nothing [of it]. It's not my job to charge him."

An unrepentant Morley, meanwhile, last night claimed it was common for players to dive in the hope of gaining penalties.

"It's very disappointing ... just the way the players stay down as if they are injured and they get up and take the first drive in the set of six," Morley told Channel Seven.

"I don't think that's very good sportsmanship. You know I certainly wouldn't do it. It's not in the spirit of the game."

Of his sending off, Morley said: "I thought it was a hard call. That's why the Roosters signed me, for my aggressive style."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/League/Morley-hit-me-flush-on-the-chin-Utai/2005/04/19/1113854201351.html

Of course he's going to say "I was injured". Did you actually expect him to come out and admit he dived? :roll:

Chook.

 

[Kiwi]

I'll be the first to admit that Morley had a technique problem and that the tackle on Utai was high. But there's no evidence to support the claim that Utai was injured? He stayed on and played on. There was no blood, no scar, no need for a doctor, no charges, no case to answer for! The only evidence that Utai was injured was that he stayed down...just until Morley was sent and then he got back up again.

However there's more then enough evidence to support the fact that Utai is a diver.

Chook.

and my response above remains - SO?


Morley screwed up first, and the ref second. The penalty was justified, the sending off not. If Utai was acting, so!!!! The ref should not be influenced by that - your beef should be with the ref!

The sending off was justified even if you don't feel it was appropriate.

The referee gave the Roosters a warning that the situation wasn't going to be allowed to get out of hand and that they had to control themselves. Haing said that he specifically warned them that if they did not settle down someone would be sent off.

Morley then sprinted a considerable distance and committed an offence. It may have been accidental, but he charged up and left the ground to make the tackle. It may have been soft, but it was an offence that is all that was needed.

In the referee's opinion, Morley had overstepped the line and that is all the justification he needed. Simpkins followed due process by explaining the situation and warning Ricketson that any more and a player would be sent. When an offence was committed he followed through.

Under these circumstances people may voice their disagreement with the referee's decision, but they should not be criticising him for being wrong. You are wrong to do so.

You may not think it was appropriate, fair, or consistent with what other officials would do, but it was justified and the referee was within his rights.

If thats the case, then 10 minutes in the bin is the appropriate action before a send off.