Steven Clark is a f*in disgrace

[kia ora storm]

What Soward did was nothing new

Agree...and he wonders why fans bag him.

 

[Meth]

Didn't the papers bag Hayne for doing something similar a couple years back???

Hayne is an out-and-out diver.

IMO- Soward realized he had no chance of collecting Patten, so he theatrically ran into Eastwood to create a case that may have not been impossible for him to prevent the try being scored had it not been for Eastwood being there.

Not quite the same in my eyes

 

[God-King Dean]

lol at those bagging Soward. Soward was smart enough to know how easy it is the get a try disallowed. I think Sowards a legend for it.

 

[Meth]

lol at those bagging Soward. Soward was smart enough to know how easy it is the get a try disallowed. I think Sowards a legend for it.

Not sure I would say he is a legend- but he's certainly not a villain and if Nathan Fien did it for us, I wouldn't be complaining

 

[aussie7798]

If it is the one I am thinking of, there was no tackle completed on Soward- Ennis completed the tackle. It was opportunist, but legal

soward had lost the ball well before ennis dived in and tackled him

 

[Collateral]

Correct decision. Might not of been the great ending to a great game people wanted, but it was the correct one.

watch it again. Soward isnt trying to tackle Patten (there's no rule saying you have to tackle an opponent at the earliest possible time)...he was trying to chase and close down his support options. Patten still had 2 dragons players infront of him and ran into the gap that was formed from Eastwood standing in the Dragons defensive line.

Soward is quick enough to keep up with Patten so this talk of him "having no chance of catching him" is just as shortsighted as it is ignorant.

Guess what Dogs fans...Dragons got the 2 Points!

 

[ByRd]

lol at those bagging Soward. Soward was smart enough to know how easy it is the get a try disallowed. I think Sowards a legend for it.

loll if that was Kimmorley who did it, you guys wouldnt stop complaining for the next 10yrs, a legend :lol: no worse then those who bagged Hayne, he milked it and knew he had no chance

 

[Game_Breaker]

Correct decision. Might not of been the great ending to a great game people wanted, but it was the correct one.

watch it again. Soward isnt trying to tackle Patten (there's no rule saying you have to tackle an opponent at the earliest possible time)...he was trying to chase and close down his support options. Patten still had 2 dragons players infront of him and ran into the gap that was formed from Eastwood standing in the Dragons defensive line.

Soward is quick enough to keep up with Patten so this talk of him "having no chance of catching him" is just as shortsighted as it is ignorant.

Guess what Dogs fans...Dragons got the 2 Points!

Sorry mate, you either dont know the rules, or didnt watch the game


Soward was not interfered with in any way. All Eastwood did was just stand there

 

[God-King Dean]

loll if that was Kimmorley who did it, you guys wouldnt stop complaining for the next 10yrs, a legend :lol: no worse then those who bagged Hayne, he milked it and knew he had no chance

lol, I'm not all Dragons fans.

And no, I wouldn't bag Kimmorley. I'd be pissed no doubt, but I'd acknowledge that he was very clever if he was the one who did it.

 

[Game_Breaker]

The law states team in possession of the ball, the players must be back 10 metres, any player who is in front of the ball receiver is offside , any contact of defensive player deliberate or not , then a penalty must to go the defensive team

People who say clarke decision was wrong have nfi

:lol:

Thanks for playing, come back next week

 

[Collateral]

All Eastwood did was just stand there

Exactly right. He stood in the Dragons defensive line and created a gap.

Matt Cooper got penalised for standing in his own defensive line last week and having JT run into him and milk a penalty.

Maybe you should take your Blue & White goggles off and watch it and consider the variables.

Do you think if you whinge anymore about a correct decision that they will give the Bulldogs 2 points?

 

[Game_Breaker]

Exactly right. He stood in the Dragons defensive line and created a gap.

Matt Cooper got penalised for standing in his own defensive line last week and having JT run into him and milk a penalty.

Maybe you should take your Blue & White goggles off and watch it and consider the variables.

Do you think if you whinge anymore about a correct decision that they will give the Bulldogs 2 points?

lol

It was a kick chase, there was no defensive line.

He was behind Patten, and running back from the kick.


You have no idea. If you saw the game, then you dont know the rules. Finch said it was the wrong decision. Im not sure you undertsand the significance of that

 

[ByRd]

The refs boss has said it was a try, about 95% know it was a try, hell even most St George fans know it was a try, if you think otherwise then you are in the minority. And if we ever win a game in this manner, i will not accept the win and would have an empty feeling but there is nothing we can do now so lets just move on

 

[Collateral]

lol

It was a kick chase, there was no defensive line.

He was behind Patten, and running back from the kick.

:lol::lol::lol:

Jeez mate, give up. Learn the rules and get the sour grapes out of your mouth.

Finch said it was the wrong decision. Im not sure you undertsand the significance of that

There is no significance. It has no bearing on the result and at the end of the day it is just his opinion on a 50/50 call. Him making a comment of it so soon after the incident just shows he is trying to appease the uproar after a hard week for Rugby League.

Mate, do yourself a favour and walk away from the computer and stop thinking about football for a while.

 

[Slackboy72]

Sorry mate, you either dont know the rules, or didnt watch the game

Soward was not interfered with in any way. All Eastwood did was just stand there

He was obstructed by a player in an offside position.
To quote the laws of the game: "Obstruction can be either active, passive or accidental. Passive obstruction is where a player impedes an opponent by deliberately remaining in his path although he has had the opportunity to remove himself."

 

[Nevan_]

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2009/...ulldogsvid.jpg


If you ask me. This clearly shows that Soward didn't have a chance.

 

[abpanther]

pretty poor call. The Dogs have had no luck this year have they.

Cheating isn't bad luck

Terrible decision though

 

[Game_Breaker]

:lol::lol::lol:

Jeez mate, give up. Learn the rules and get the sour grapes out of your mouth.



There is no significance. It has no bearing on the result and at the end of the day it is just his opinion on a 50/50 call. Him making a comment of it so soon after the incident just shows he is trying to appease the uproar after a hard week for Rugby League.

Mate, do yourself a favour and walk away from the computer and stop thinking about football for a while.

:crazy: Gaba, nearly every single RL fan knows it is a try.


Please support some other sport, becuase you obviously dont know the rules of RL

He was obstructed by a player in an offside position.
To quote the laws of the game: "Obstruction can be either active, passive or accidental. Passive obstruction is where a player impedes an opponent by deliberately remaining in his path although he has had the opportunity to remove himself."

But he was onside, Patten was infront of him.

lol, seriously you 2 sound so desperate defending this, and he had no opportunity to "remove himself"


The rule you're talking about is more in relation to decoy plays, Patten was running downfield. Soward ran into him

If anything Soward stopped Eastwood from being in the support play.

 

[Parramatta_Power]

:crazy: Gaba, nearly every single RL fan knows it is a try.


Please support some other sport, becuase you obviously dont know the rules of RL




But he was onside, Patten was infront of him.

lol, seriously you 2 sound so desperate defending this, and he had no opportunity to "remove himself"


The rule you're talking about is more in relation to decoy plays, Patten was running downfield. Soward ran into him

If anything Soward stopped Eastwood from being in the support play.

Does seem more probable...

 

[typicalfan]

He was obstructed by a player in an offside position.
To quote the laws of the game: "Obstruction can be either active, passive or accidental. Passive obstruction is where a player impedes an opponent by deliberately remaining in his path although he has had the opportunity to remove himself."

Who was offside? Eastwood didn't deliberately remain in the path at all he didn't even see Soward and Soward was chasing from behind so that renders your point worthless.