Steven Clark is a f*in disgrace

[Southernsaint]

Will this sooking EVER end??

FMD, it's getting tiresome.

 

[ByRd]

loll dragon fans telling others about sooking, isnt it ironic??

but as i said in the other thread, we just to get over it and move on, we know they made the wrong decision and the dragons know they should of lost but we cant do anything now so lets get on with it

 

[Southernsaint]

loll dragon fans telling others about sooking, isnt it ironic??

but as i said in the other thread, we just to get over it and move on, we know they made the wrong decision and the dragons know they should of lost but we cant do anything now so lets get on with it

You should start another post telling everyne to get over it.

Can't wait to play your lot again when our key players are properly rested. It will be a massacre...

 

[ByRd]

bring it on....

 

[Trentski]

All I can say is suck sh*t to the dogs. The dogs fans knew where the exit was after that game

f**kn sooks throwing bottles on the field. Cry much?

 

[Willow]

Dragons may have got the 2 points, but Bulldogs were the better team.

I think this is your first post in the thread, and it doesn't do your credibility any good.

The stats don't agree with you.

Saints won the possession (55%), field position, metres gained, hit ups, offloads, line breaks... and the match.

The only stats the Bulldogs won were the penalty count and the missed tackles.

There were plenty rough decisions in the match:

5 min: Hornby was robbed a try.
The ref called him back for a double knock-on. Saints didn't knock-on. The ref erred. Play should have continued, the incident could have been looked at by video.

31 min: Creagh double movement.
A 50/50 that went against Saints. I agree with the video ref decision btw, but we've seen them given in the past. Without the slomo, and in normal motion, it looked like a try.

45 min: Kimmorely sin bin.
No advantage played. Dogs defence was shot to bits. Brett Morris picked up the ball and would have scored - no one was in front of him when he was called back. We got the penalty, but the Dogs' defensive line had time to reset.

70 min: Idris try.
This one stinks the most. Why was no video ref called to look at the following:
1. Idris falling short of the line, then trying to promote the ball - no double movement? Did he even make the chalk?
2. Plus with the help of Hannant pushing the ball forward - supposedly to make sure the ball touched the line.
But get this... Hannant was in front of the kicker. He was offside.
Have a look.

78 min: Saints' final set. A double tackle on Soward. Plus both Ennis and Hannant offside. I know it was a heritage match, but they are supposed to stay back more than 5 yards. If the Dogs were penalised for any one of these infringements, it was game over. But again, they got the rub of the green.

Cap this off with a disgraceful effort at full time with Bulldogs fans throwing projectiles onto the field. I suspect we have a some dogs fans here willing and ready to justify this.

I mention the above rough decisions not to cry foul, but to put the sore loser's whinging into perspective. You got the ref's nod a number of times, but you still lost.

Good teams beat bad refs. In this case, it was Saints. Last night, the losing team was outplayed for the majority of the match. The better team won on the night.

Your coach should be looking at the missed tackles and error rate. Our coach should be looking the flatness in attack and drop in concentration midway through the second half. The referees need to get their house in order - a debate that has been going on since before football was invented.

 

[Apey]

Yeah all this 'better team' lost bullsh*t just sounds like 'sore-losers'.

It was a hard call but I thought Saints were the better team despite having a slow start :?

 

[Willow]

We should apply to the NRL to have the result overturned. :sarcasm:

Or take it to court.

Who would the Dogs call as a character witness?

 

[Jasdragon]

I think this is your first post in the thread, and it doesn't do your credibility any good.

The stats don't agree with you.

Saints won the possession (55%), field position, metres gained, hit ups, offloads, line breaks... and the match.

The only stats the Bulldogs won were the penalty count and the missed tackles.

There were plenty rough decisions in the match:

5 min: Hornby was robbed a try.
The ref called him back for a double knock-on. Saints didn't knock-on. The ref erred. Play should have continued, the incident could have been looked at by video.

31 min: Creagh double movement.
A 50/50 that went against Saints. I agree with the video ref decision btw, but we've seen them given in the past. Without the slomo, and in normal motion, it looked like a try.

45 min: Kimmorely sin bin.
No advantage played. Dogs defence was shot to bits. Brett Morris picked up the ball and would have scored - no one was in front of him when he was called back. We got the penalty, but the Dogs' defensive line had time to reset.

70 min: Idris try.
This one stinks the most. Why was no video ref called to look at the following:
1. Idris falling short of the line, then trying to promote the ball - no double movement? Did he even make the chalk?
2. Plus with the help of Hannant pushing the ball forward - supposedly to make sure the ball touched the line.
But get this... Hannant was in front of the kicker. He was offside.
Have a look.

78 min: Saints' final set. A double tackle on Soward. Plus both Ennis and Hannant offside. I know it was a heritage match, but they are supposed to stay back more than 5 yards. If the Dogs were penalised for any one of these infringements, it was game over. But again, they got the rub of the green.

Cap this off with a disgraceful effort at full time with Bulldogs fans throwing projectiles onto the field. I suspect we have a some dogs fans here willing and ready to justify this.

I mention the above rough decisions not to cry foul, but to put the sore loser's whinging into perspective. You got the ref's nod a number of times, but you still lost.

Good teams beat bad refs. In this case, it was Saints. Last night, the losing team was outplayed for the majority of the match. The better team won on the night.

Your coach should be looking at the missed tackles and error rate. Our coach should be looking the flatness in attack and drop in concentration midway through the second half. The referees need to get their house in order - a debate that has been going on since before football was invented.

A lot of good points the end still sucks but the Dragons were the better team.

 

[Game_Breaker]

I think this is your first post in the thread, and it doesn't do your credibility any good.

The stats don't agree with you.

The stats dont tell the whole story though

Saints won the possession (55%), field position, metres gained, hit ups, offloads, line breaks... and the match.

Ofcourse with the amount of possesion the Dragons had, naturally other stats will fall their way. That includes hit ups, line breaks, offloads.

At one point the possession was about 70-30%

Its what the Dragons did with the ball (or didnt do) coupled with the field position they had (how many times were they tackled in the Bulldogs 20) that led me to say they were not the better team.

5 min: Hornby was robbed a try.
The ref called him back for a double knock-on. Saints didn't knock-on. The ref erred. Play should have continued, the incident could have been looked at by video.

No he wasnt

I agree it was play on, but that doesnt necessarily mean he was robbed. A big reason for making the break in the first place was because the ref blew the whistle. Most of the players played to the whistle. So even if he did call play on, the Dragons were less likely to make a break since the Bulldogs wouldve played on as well.

31 min: Creagh double movement.
A 50/50 that went against Saints. I agree with the video ref decision btw, but we've seen them given in the past. Without the slomo, and in normal motion, it looked like a try.

C'mon, thats not 50/50, his arm clearly touched the ground. Double movement.

45 min: Kimmorely sin bin.
No advantage played. Dogs defence was shot to bits. Brett Morris picked up the ball and would have scored - no one was in front of him when he was called back. We got the penalty, but the Dogs' defensive line had time to reset.

I dont even agree with the sin bin, bad play the ball from Cooper. He wasnt interfered with by Kimmorely

If anything, scrum shouldve packed with Dogs feed

Add to this, the Dragons had plenty of chances to attack a 12 man team on our own line. They showed nothing. Credit to our defence.

70 min: Idris try.
This one stinks the most. Why was no video ref called to look at the following:
1. Idris falling short of the line, then trying to promote the ball - no double movement? Did he even make the chalk?

Ive said this to other Dragons fans, Tony Archer was right there on the spot.

He was standing right infront of the players. Why go upstairs when his view is better than anyone or any camera? We always say we want our ref to use the video ref less, so obviously Archer was confident enough he grounded the ball on the line to award it.

Plus, there was hardly any protest from the Dragon players, thats usually an indication that its a try.

2. Plus with the help of Hannant pushing the ball forward - supposedly to make sure the ball touched the line.
But get this... Hannant was in front of the kicker. He was offside.
Have a look.

I'll have to look at that again

78 min:

Saints' final set. A double tackle on Soward. Plus both Ennis and Hannant offside. I know it was a heritage match, but they are supposed to stay back more than 5 yards. If the Dogs were penalised for any one of these infringements, it was game over. But again, they got the rub of the green.

Those ruck calls happen throughout the match, there is no way the ref was going to penalise the Bulldogs for that.

Plus werent Ennis and Hannant the 2 markers?

Cap this off with a disgraceful effort at full time with Bulldogs fans throwing projectiles onto the field. I suspect we have a some dogs fans here willing and ready to justify this.

No one really justified it, just said their frustration was totally understandable.

Throwing rubbish on the field isnt right, but its hardly a big deal given its a reaction to one of the worst vid ref decisions ever.

I mention the above rough decisions not to cry foul, but to put the sore loser's whinging into perspective. You got the ref's nod a number of times, but you still lost.

Good teams beat bad refs. In this case, it was Saints. Last night, the losing team was outplayed for the majority of the match. The better team won on the night.

I think the fact that most neutral fans agree the Bulldogs shouldve won indicates that this isnt a case of sore losers whinging.

That decision cost us 2 points, it had nothing to do with a rule change, or interpretation. It was because Steven Clark doesnt know the rules.

If Robert Finch decided on a different vid ref to officiate, we wouldve won. Thats what it comes down to

Your coach should be looking at the missed tackles and error rate. Our coach should be looking the flatness in attack and drop in concentration midway through the second half. The referees need to get their house order - a debate that has been going on since before football was invented.

This is another reason why I think the Dragons werent the better team. You say its a drop in concentration, I dont think it was. I say its because we started to hold on to the ball more and gain more possession, and every time we attacked we looked dangerous.

I cant say the same thing for the Dragons.



All that because I said the better team lost, thats was just my opinion.

 

[Willow]

Eastwood was upfield of Patten when he received the ball and began to run - so Eastwood was at that point off-side. The whole time Eastwood was off-side, he wasn't blocking Soward from running forward towards or across field to tackle Patten.

However, when Patten ran past both Soward and Eastwood, this placed Eastwood between the two - but this is the complete reverse of a conventional obstruction.

The play is no longer coming towards Soward, it is going upfield away.

Though Eastwood is possibly obstructing Soward, as an on-side player that is not his problem.

That meant Soward was now in the chasing role (as opposed to defending front on in a conventional obstruction).

As long as they are on-side, a team mate of the ball carrier doesn't have to concern himself with obstructing defenders chasing the ball-carrier from behind.

Once Patten ran past them, that placed Eastwood between Soward and Patten - but Eastwood, as an on-side team mate of a ball-carrier, can lawfully obstruct a defender.

It happens all the time when team mates support a ball-carrier, with the classic/extreme example being Mal Meninga with his winning try supporting Ricky Stuart in the 2nd test of the 1990 Ashes series.

Yep.

Most of us have seen the incident from west to east. The other 'south to north' angle and is not so conclusive. There's just hint that Soward's chase would have been impeded.

Not saying it's right or wrong, just trying to read into everything the video ref saw.

Personally, I wasn't happy with the refs all night.

 

[Timmah]

Kimmorley sin-bin was the worst binning I've ever seen. Kimmorley did nothing to hold anyone down - Cooper actually pushed forward into him. Unbelievable decision IMO.

 

[Meth]

Kimmorley sin-bin was the worst binning I've ever seen. Kimmorley did nothing to hold anyone down - Cooper actually pushed forward into him. Unbelievable decision IMO.

Myles tonight was just as bad- maybe worse

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Myles was sin binned because after the first penalty goal he stood on the 40 when the kick off was liend up and gave the blonde nice person a massive spray. It was clear as day that if he even so much as fart next to the blonde Newcastle ref he was going to be off.

 

[Willow]

The stats dont tell the whole story though

My opinion is that the better team won. I used the stats support that view.

Your opinion is 'we wuz robbed'. Which is fine, you have a passion. I'm not going to criticise anyone for being one-eyed.

Ofcourse with the amount of possesion the Dragons had, naturally other stats will fall their way. That includes hit ups, line breaks, offloads.

At one point the possession was about 70-30%

Well you're either using stats or you're not.

The facts are that the majority of the football was found down Canterbury's end.

Its what the Dragons did with the ball (or didnt do) coupled with the field position they had (how many times were they tackled in the Bulldogs 20) that led me to say they were not the better team.

Whatever. Look at your missed tackled count.

Better still, look at the scoring sequence:

Dragons 6-0
Dragons 8-0
Dragons 14-0
Dragons 14-6
Dragons 14-12
Dragons 20-12
Dragons 20-18

Perhaps you see a pattern forming here... Saints got out to a handy lead, and led throughout the entire match. Canterbury were never in front.

No he wasnt

I agree it was play on, but that doesnt necessarily mean he was robbed. A big reason for making the break in the first place was because the ref blew the whistle. Most of the players played to the whistle. So even if he did call play on, the Dragons were less likely to make a break since the Bulldogs wouldve played on as well.

The fact that referee called it back, and the subsequent replay, shows that it was a dud call against Saints. At least you agree with that much.
I don't agree that defence played to the whistle, I doubt they heard it.

C'mon, thats not 50/50, his arm clearly touched the ground. Double movement.

I said I agreed with the video ref on that. Read back.

I also said we have seen those given. I'm sure plenty of people were unsure.

I dont even agree with the sin bin, bad play the ball from Cooper. He wasnt interfered with by Kimmorely

If anything, scrum shouldve packed with Dogs feed

Add to this, the Dragons had plenty of chances to attack a 12 man team on our own line. They showed nothing. Credit to our defence.

lol. Again read back. I didn't like the penalty, Cooper was interferred with but I say play on. It should have been play-on. By giving the penalty the dogs were let off the hook. You should be thanking the ref for that one.

Ive said this to other Dragons fans, Tony Archer was right there on the spot.

Debate 101. That proves nothing.

So the referees are right when it goes your way. Glad we cleared that up. lol.

He was standing right infront of the players. Why go upstairs when his view is better than anyone or any camera? We always say we want our ref to use the video ref less, so obviously Archer was confident enough he grounded the ball on the line to award it.

Plus, there was hardly any protest from the Dragon players, thats usually an indication that its a try.

And equally, it's good to see you trust the body language of Saints players when it suits the cause. But again, you miss the point. There was a lot of doubt over this try - a kick ahead, players offside, dodgy grounding. It needed to go upstairs. But you got the rub of the green.

I'll have to look at that again

Please do, and you'll see Hannant in front of the kicker.

But it doesn't matter, the try was awarded and that's that.

Those ruck calls happen throughout the match, there is no way the ref was going to penalise the Bulldogs for that.

Plus werent Ennis and Hannant the 2 markers?

Ennis was 5m back, and hardly square. Look, I'm not having a go their gamesmanship, or the referee missing it. I saying you got lucky, and it could have been over there and then. Read what I posted.

No one really justified it, just said their frustration was totally understandable.

Throwing rubbish on the field isnt right, but its hardly a big deal given its a reaction to one of the worst vid ref decisions ever.

lol. I think you just justified it.

There's a reason why the dogs supporters have a reputation.

Even Canterbury players were pleading with them to stop.

I think the fact that most neutral fans agree the Bulldogs shouldve won indicates that this isnt a case of sore losers whinging.

Again, that proves nothing.

That decision cost us 2 points, it had nothing to do with a rule change, or interpretation. It was because Steven Clark doesnt know the rules.

Well I'm sure he does know the rules, but he is human. You're obviously upset about the result - imo there be no other reason for your comment.

If Robert Finch decided on a different vid ref to officiate, we wouldve won. Thats what it comes down to

There's no way you can know that.

This is another reason why I think the Dragons werent the better team. You say its a drop in concentration, I dont think it was. I say its because we started to hold on to the ball more and gain more possession, and every time we attacked we looked dangerous.

I cant say the same thing for the Dragons.

All that because I said the better team lost, thats was just my opinion.

And you are entitled to that opinion. But the facts don't back you up.

Bulldogs came back and made a game of it, but it wasn't enough. Matches are won over 80 minutes.

 

[Game_Breaker]

My opinion is that the better team won. I used the stats support that view.

Your opinion is 'we wuz robbed'. Which is fine, you have a passion. I'm not going to criticise anyone for being one-eyed.

:lol:

If I'm one eyed then you must be blind

Saints fans saying they got all the bad calls is nothing new

Well you're either using stats or you're not.

The facts are that the majority of the football was found down Canterbury's end.

and thats an important point. The Dragons were given plently of opportunities to score, they didnt take them


Im not criticising you for using stats, just your interpretation.

More line breaks, offloads etc mean nothing if you dont convert them. Dragons didnt convert their opportunitiies, cant see how they were the better team from that.

Whatever. Look at your missed tackled count.

Better still, look at the scoring sequence:

Dragons 6-0
Dragons 8-0
Dragons 14-0
Dragons 14-6
Dragons 14-12
Dragons 20-12
Dragons 20-18

Perhaps you see a pattern forming here... Saints got out to a handy lead, and led throughout the entire match. Canterbury were never in front.

You're not reading the match

Just because they were infront, doesnt mean they were superior throughout game.

That scoring sequence says Canterbury were coming home strong. I say Bulldogs end was stronger than the Dragons start.

The fact that referee called it back, and the subsequent replay, shows that it was a dud call against Saints. At least you agree with that much.
I don't agree that defence played to the whistle, I doubt they heard it.

The whistle had alot to do with it

Dragons fans werent hard done by as they make out

I said I agreed with the video ref on that. Read back.

Thats not the point, you incorrectly called it a 50/50 call in order to show that we were lucky.

It wasnt 50/50 not even close, therefore we wernt lucky.

I also said we have seen those given. I'm sure plenty of people were unsure.

If people are unsure, they need to read the rules. No doubt it was a double movement

Incorrect decision in the past doesnt mean this was a lucky call to the Bulldogs

lol. Again read back. I didn't like the penalty, Cooper was interferred with but I say play on. It should have been play-on. By giving the penalty the dogs were let off the hook. You should be thanking the ref for that one.

For having our main playmaker off the field? :crazy:

We couldve scored a couple of trys if Kimmorely was on, we certainly had attacking opportunities.

Was a bad play the ball from Cooper, Dragons were lucky with that call, not the Bulldogs.

It couldnt have been play on because of the terrible play the ball from Cooper. The ref had to make a decision, and it went the Dragons way. Big call

Debate 101. That proves nothing.

So the referees are right when it goes your way. Glad we cleared that up. lol.

No lol

Proves he had a better view than you, me or the camera man. If there was any doubt over the grounding he wouldve went upstairs.

And equally, it's good to see you trust the body language of Saints players when it suits the cause. But again, you miss the point. There was a lot of doubt over this try - a kick ahead, players offside, dodgy grounding. It needed to go upstairs. But you got the rub of the green.

The only people that seem to have doubt over it are Saints fans. The body language of the ref, touch judges, players while arent used to determine a try, they certainly are an indication.

Im sure if the Dragons players had any doubt they wouldve protested to the ref, just like Hornby did for the Idris no try.

The point is, we wernt as lucky as you claim

Please do, and you'll see Hannant in front of the kicker.

I will

Ennis was 5m back, and hardly square. Look, I'm not having a go their gamesmanship, or the referee missing it. I saying you got lucky, and it could over there and then. Read what I posted.

Pick one, he's either 5m back and offside, or he wasnt square at marker

Those ruck calls happen throughout the match

If you want those penalised, there'll be 1000s of penalties a match, the refs arnt that pedantic.

lol. I think you just justified it.

Thats news to me

There's a reason why the dogs supporters have a reputation.

Throwing rubbish on the field isnt the reason

Couldve been worse, Im sure theres always a bucket of spit lying around Kogarah somewhere

Again, that proves nothing.

Proves it not about sore losers whinging as you claim, unless the neutral fans are sore losers too

Well I'm sure he does know the rules, but he is human. You're obviously upset about the result - imo there be no other reason for your comment.

I dont think he does, he seems to think Eastwood had no right to stand there.

He had every right to.

There's no way you can know that.

Based on probability. Robert Finch said it was a try. I think its safe to assume most of the vid refs he 'coaches' dont differ with him too much

And you are entitled to that opinion. But the facts don't back you up.

Bulldogs came back and made a game of it, but it wasn't enough. Matches are won over 80 minutes.

We did comeback

Saints started strongly, didnt take full advantage of their possession and field position

We were denied a clear try at the 80th minute mark, the match winner

Because of that, I say our strong ending made up for the strong start to the Saints which they didnt take advantage of.

 

[Willow]

:lol:

If I'm one eyed then you must be blind

Saints fans saying they got all the bad calls is nothing new

You don't like being called one-eyed? Wow, in some quarters it is worn like a badge of honour.

Would you preferred it if I called you a well balance and impartial observer?

Let's face it chuckles, you're the Groucho Marx of bias and one-eyeisms.

and thats an important point. The Dragons were given plently of opportunities to score, they didnt take them

Im not criticising you for using stats, just your interpretation.

More line breaks, offloads etc mean nothing if you dont convert them. Dragons didnt convert their opportunitiies, cant see how they were the better team from that.

But they did convert them, eventually into a 14-0 lead. It would have been more if Hornby wasn't robbed.

You're not reading the match

Just because they were infront, doesnt mean they were superior throughout game.

That scoring sequence says Canterbury were coming home strong. I say Bulldogs end was stronger than the Dragons start.

I'm reading the match fine. Saints led all the way. I'm also looking at the score board.

It's an 80 minute game, you seem to have the wiped from your memory those periods of play where Saints were dominant, the Bulldogs were missing tackles and dropping balls.

Accept the facts, you lost.

The whistle had alot to do with it

Dragons fans werent hard done by as they make out

The defence chased Hornby after he broke through the line. Again, the facts don't back you up.

Thats not the point, you incorrectly called it a 50/50 call in order to show that we were lucky.

It wasnt 50/50 not even close, therefore we wernt lucky.

LOL! OK Benito. How is it incorrect to say Creagh's no-try was a 50/50 call? Last time I checked you weren't the last stop for my opinion.

For having our main playmaker off the field? :crazy:

We couldve scored a couple of trys if Kimmorely was on, we certainly had attacking opportunities.

Was a bad play the ball from Cooper, Dragons were lucky with that call, not the Bulldogs.

It couldnt have been play on because of the terrible play the ball from Cooper. The ref had to make a decision, and it went the Dragons way. Big call

Emoticons. If used right, can say so much without saying anything at all.

How's this one?
:BDH:

If I recall correctly, Morris was racing off to score after Cooper and Boyd had just carved up your left side defence.

No lol

Proves he had a better view than you, me or the camera man. If there was any doubt over the grounding he wouldve went upstairs.

The only people that seem to have doubt over it are Saints fans. The body language of the ref, touch judges, players while arent used to determine a try, they certainly are an indication.

Im sure if the Dragons players had any doubt they wouldve protested to the ref, just like Hornby did for the Idris no try.

The point is, we wernt as lucky as you claim

More wishful thinking.

If he went upstairs, the try would have been disallowed due to the blatant offside from Hannant, second man in trying to force the ball.

Interestingly, it seems that Hannant didn't think it had touched the line either. Why else would he try to force Idris's arm the ball forward?

Fact: Hannant = offside. No video ref = lucky.

Pick one, he's either 5m back and offside, or he wasnt square at marker

Well you can be both offside and not square. Even Steve Clark knows that.

We're not going to get further bogged down in semantics are we?

Those ruck calls happen throughout the match

If you want those penalised, there'll be 1000s of penalties a match, the refs arnt that pedantic.

He was offside, and players are often penalised for that. You got lucky.

I'm not the one complaining about it, just saying how you weren't as 'robbed' as you think you were.

Thats news to me

Of course you did.

Throwing rubbish on the field isnt the reason

Couldve been worse, Im sure theres always a bucket of spit lying around Kogarah somewhere

And an action which I don't condone. It was years ago, we're talking about last night.

Do you condemn or support the violent behaviour of Bulldogs fans?

Proves it not about sore losers whinging as you claim, unless the neutral fans are sore losers too

Proves nothing.

It just means people are entitled to their opinion. It doesn't strengthen your case. If you think it does, then you're clutching at straws (in addition to being a sore loser).

There are also people who disagree with you, calling you a sore loser, and yet you are quick to disregard those opinions.

So don't play games - it's a debate, not a popularity contest.

I dont think he does, he seems to think Eastwood had no right to stand there.

He had every right to.

Based on probability. Robert Finch said it was a try. I think its safe to assume most of the vid refs he 'coaches' dont differ with him too much

Well we can't argue with the foundations of probability. lol

You claim if Finch appointed a different video ref, you would have won. Unless you are a time traveller and psychic to boot, there is no way you can state that as a fact. You just made it up.

We did comeback

Saints started strongly, didnt take full advantage of their possession and field position

We were denied a clear try at the 80th minute mark, the match winner

Because of that, I say our strong ending made up for the strong start to the Saints which they didnt take advantage of.

And I say again that the game is not just won in the 80th minute. If the Hornby no-try was denied in the final seconds, would you be blowing up deluxe about that?

The bottom line is that both sides copped some poor decisions, and I feel that something has to be done about the obstruction rule. But to say the better team lost is just sour grapes.

I know it's not a good feeling, and you're not taking it well. But it happens to every team, and every supporter.

Get well soon.

 

[Xplosive]

LOL at Willow talking about credibility.
Most your fans will agree it was a rabbey.
BTW Willow it was an 80 minute game so the total scored should be over 80
Bulldogs 22 Dragons 20 is the real score.
Evenly matched game over 80 minutes with momentum swinging a few times.
Another 10 minutes and the dragons get steam rolled by a team that spent the first 20 minutes tackling.
You would not know what that feel likes would you you willow, I bet you have either never played the game in your life or were some sh!thouse mutt who played for your local pub team.
Big effort to finnish the stronger after that

 

[The General]

If he went upstairs, the try would have been disallowed due to the blatant offside from Hannant, second man in trying to force the ball.

Interestingly, it seems that Hannant didn't think it had touched the line either. Why else would he try to force Idris's arm the ball forward?

Fact: Hannant = offside. No video ref = lucky.

You would think as an administrator of this site you would get your facts right before spouting **** in an attempt to argue with other forum members.

Pic 1 shows no blatant offside. It is very close and difficult to tell from that angle but looks onside. Most of those are let go when they go to the VR.

Pic 2 shows Idris getting the ball down on the line before Hannant's hands are near the ball.

Can you admit you were wrong and it was a fair try?

 

[Southernsaint]

You'd think it was an important game or something, like a Semi or Grand Final...