Steven Clark is a f*in disgrace

[The General]

As for your other arguments
1. Goodwin lost the ball into Weyman which automatically constitutes a knock on. Has been that way for many years now.
2. 50/50 call my ***. It was a blatant double movement no doubts about it.
3. Cooper knocked the ball on in the play the ball after the break. So it was either a knock on or a penalty. You can't claim Morris was entitled to score as the play was never going to go ahead either way.

Thanks for coming.

 

[The General]

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

I'm over it mate. We got dudded but these things happen and we have to move on. Just hate that people base arguments on **** that isn't true. Thought I'd help a few blind Dragons supporters out.

 

[Game_Breaker]

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.

I think the guy that says the opposition got the lucky calls when they didnt is the one eyed fan.

Its just a lousy attempt to cover up the ridiculous call at the end

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

Hornby wasnt robbed

If you were happy with the 14-6 lead, I guess you dont expect much

I didnt feel too bad about it

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.

No, I just dont think your 'dominance' was that strong

Having possession doesnt equal dominace

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

The ref blew the whislte, half the team didnt care.

Thats a fact, dont ignore that

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.

A 50/50 call implies it was close

Was not close, his arm touched the ground. Even he knew that

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.

You're still ignoring the bad sin bin call, the fact it was a bad play the ball

A Dragons fans not admitting to being lucky? surely not

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.
[/quote]


I was going to take your word for it, but lucky I went back and checked

Heres the moment Kimmoreley put up the bomb, the red line indicates both Kimmorely (kicker) and Hannant (on right side)

I dont see the blatent offside you're referring to

This puts a serious dent in your credibility

Turns out you were the one eyed fan, not me :lol:

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?

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

Even though you said it shouldve been a try

You can go every match, and thered be countless incidents like that

Of course you did.

Show me

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?

I condemn, I already have on here

But I get your point, only you're allowed to bring up past crowd incidents, but when I do you dismiss it and say "it was years ago"

ok

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).

If its only about sore losers, then surely we'll be the only ones jumping up and down

Rival fans, commentators, journalists all share the same opinion.

So I dont think you can dismiss it as just sore losers whinging

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.

What, 1 or 2 people?

point is you dismissed the post match discussion and called us sore losers.

That sore loser excuse takes care of us Doggies fans, but it doesnt cover all the other thousands of fans.

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.

No thats my opinion

I based that on probability, for 2 reasons

a) and overwhelming majority would have given that a try
b) Finch has come out and said it was a try (he doesnt always do that)

I havnt made up any of that

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?

Well maybe you would have, I discussed the Hornby no try above

But point is every minute counts, the time it happend is irrelevant

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.

Well, I am over it

You decided to quote me from a post at the start of the thread. I just responded

You tried to make it out we were lucky during the match in an attempt to play down the decision at the end, all you did was highlight your own bias.
That Hannant offside call proves this

 

[Ribs]

LOL yeah you guys really have moved on......!

One thing for sure, all this makes me far happier at not only the result but the finish.

Seeing dogs fans this cut up is magic stuff.

 

[The General]

LOL yeah you guys really have moved on......!

One thing for sure, all this makes me far happier at not only the result but the finish.

Seeing dogs fans this cut up is magic stuff.

And seeing Dragons fans happy with a team that had more then 50 tackles in the opposition 20 and could only score 3 tries is even better. I smell another massive CHOKE and huge disappointment for you this year. Can't wait!

 

[Ribs]

And seeing Dragons fans happy with a team that had more then 50 tackles in the opposition 20 and could only score 3 tries is even better. I smell another massive CHOKE and huge disappointment for you this year. Can't wait!

6 line breaks to 4 chump, with possession evening out in the end. Yeah you blokes are going great lol.

Cheers for the 2 points.

 

[Southernsaint]

And seeing Dragons fans happy with a team that had more then 50 tackles in the opposition 20 and could only score 3 tries is even better. I smell another massive CHOKE and huge disappointment for you this year. Can't wait!

I'm thirsty, can someone order me an icy cold pint of Belmore BITTER??

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[Kiki]

i cant believe this thread is still going. good lord

 

[Brycey]

LOL yeah you guys really have moved on......!

One thing for sure, all this makes me far happier at not only the result but the finish.

Seeing dogs fans this cut up is magic stuff.

lol that is true.

I hate the Dogs as much as the next person and was going for the Dragons, but as the commentators said it left a very empty feeling towards the game the way it finished.

What would be even funnier is if the Dogs missed the 8 by 2 points lol.

 

[gong_eagle]

VIDEO referee Steve Clark will be sacked tomorrow for his no-try howler against the Bulldogs, but he still refuses to admit he made a blunder.

to read the rest go to
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sport/nrl/story/0,26799,25492726-5006066,00.html

 

[Shifty]

It was a disgraceful decision, but I don't think that makes Clark a disgrace, nor should he be dropped for one bad decision. If his overall performance has been poor, but not on the basis of one incident.

The role of the video referee does come into question with this event. If there are still going to be such obvious errors is it worth the time wasted on so many replays?

 

[Gaba]

I t was proved last night clarke made the wrong decision on not awardingt ben creaghs 2nd try which would have gave the dragons 20 point lead.

Found out it was mullen double movement was identical to creaghs,in normal speed were trys, the video refs arent suppose to make thier ruling in slow motion for double movement which clarke did


eggs on everyone faces now they the ones who were saying the bulldogs were robbed when the facts keep on proving it was the dragons who would have been robbed, having 2 or 3 trys what were trys disallowed

 

[Willow]

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?

You're more than welcome to debate the point, but do so man-to-man, member-to-member. Try it without the whinging about forum titles which you seem to feel are important. I certainly have no problems with you posting your opinion, I trust the same works in reverse.

And lol at your Hannant was not offside. You certainly went to a lot of trouble there.
But look at the footage, not selective stills.
At the very least, it should have gone to the video ref.
Idris fell short of the line, why did Hannant try to help him promote the ball? Again, it should have been looked at by video. Are you willing to concede that much?

Hornby was robbed a try. No doubt about it (I hope it's OK with you if I hold that view).

Creagh's no-try is the subject of debate, just as the Bulldog's no-try is.

I would have given the last Bulldogs try - I'm not arguing that.

What I am arguing is the riduculous claim that the better team lost all because of one incident, an incident which at worst evened up the bad calls Saints were copping earlier.

You guys were beaten by a better team on the night. Try to accept the result with dignity, and not like a bunch of bottle-throwing cry babies.

 

[Dogaholic]

You're more than welcome to debate the point, but do so man-to-man, member-to-member. Try it without the whinging about forum titles which you seem to feel are important. I certainly have no problems with you posting your opinion, I trust the same works in reverse.

And lol at your Hannant was not offside. You certainly went to a lot of trouble there.
But look at the footage, not selective stills.
At the very least, it should have gone to the video ref.
Idris fell short of the line, why did Hannant try to help him promote the ball? Again, it should have been looked at by video. Are you willing to concede that much?

Hornby was robbed a try. No doubt about it (I hope it's OK with you if I hold that view).

Creagh's no-try is the subject of debate, just as the Bulldog's no-try is.

I would have given the last Bulldogs try - I'm not arguing that.

What I am arguing is the riduculous claim that the better team lost all because of one incident, an incident which at worst evened up the bad calls Saints were copping earlier.

You guys were beaten by a better team on the night. Try to accept the result with dignity, and not like a bunch of bottle-throwing cry babies.

The Dragons were the better team on the night, I agree, however there is no debating Creagh's try.

The ball carrying arm was on the ground and a second action saw him reach to place the ball over the line. Pretty clear cut tbh. You guys won. We are still on top of the ladder as we should be.

Next week we'll beat Melbourne and we'll see you Dragons in the finals.

PS. I was confused as to why the Hornsby try was disallowed. I think the ref saw a knock from a Dragons player after Goodwin knocked it.

 

[Butters]

The Dragons were the better team on the night, I agree, however there is no debating Creagh's try.

The ball carrying arm was on the ground and a second action saw him reach to place the ball over the line. Pretty clear cut tbh. You guys won. We are still on top of the ladder as we should be.

Next week we'll beat Melbourne and we'll see you Dragons in the finals.

PS. I was confused as to why the Hornsby try was disallowed. I think the ref saw a knock from a Dragons player after Goodwin knocked it.

lolno

 

[Apey]

VIDEO referee Steve Clark will be sacked tomorrow for his no-try howler against the Bulldogs, but he still refuses to admit he made a blunder.

to read the rest go to
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sport/nrl/story/0,26799,25492726-5006066,00.html

lolwot.

They're pretty certain yet the article says nothing of the sort.. :lol:

 

[The General]

You're more than welcome to debate the point, but do so man-to-man, member-to-member. Try it without the whinging about forum titles which you seem to feel are important. I certainly have no problems with you posting your opinion, I trust the same works in reverse.

Fair enough

And lol at your Hannant was not offside. You certainly went to a lot of trouble there.
But look at the footage, not selective stills.

The still I provided is the exact moment Kimmorley kicked the ball from the high camera angle that is always use to judge offside. And besides you were the one claiming it was a blatant offside. If it was that blatant then the still I provided would have shown that. Can you concede you were wrong?

At the very least, it should have gone to the video ref.
Idris fell short of the line, why did Hannant try to help him promote the ball? Again, it should have been looked at by video. Are you willing to concede that much?

Who cares if it should have gone to the video ref or not? You are the one claiming it would have definitely been a no try which I've provided evidence against. Again the pic shows the ball on the line before Hannant is near the ball.

Hornby was robbed a try. No doubt about it (I hope it's OK with you if I hold that view).

You can hold any view you want. But the only view that counts is the one which adheres to the rule book. And as soon as a ball is knocked forward into a defender the whistle is blown and a scrum is packed.

Creagh's no-try is the subject of debate, just as the Bulldog's no-try is.

Everything can be subject to debate. But to say it was a 50/50 call is ridiculous. Especially when you then go on to say that a try with minimal doubt (Idris) was blatantly a no try.

I would have given the last Bulldogs try - I'm not arguing that.

What I am arguing is the ridiculous claim that the better team lost all because of one incident, an incident which at worst evened up the bad calls Saints were copping earlier.

You guys were beaten by a better team on the night. Try to accept the result with dignity, and not like a bunch of bottle-throwing cry babies.

I see you selectively ignored the supposed Morris try but I guess it's hard admitting you're wrong sometimes.

The view of who was the better team on the night it so subjective it's not worth arguing over. The Saints had an enormous amount of ball in the Dogs 20 and could only manage 3 tries. That doesn't strike me as a team who played that well. The Bulldogs defended pretty much the whole 1st half but still had enough juice to claw their way back at the end of the game and almost snatch victory. As the scoreline indicates it was a very close game and if the Saints were that much better it wouldn't have needed to come down to the last minute.

 

[Shifty]

Wayne Bennett is a disgrace and the biggest hypocrite in the game.

"Jamie may have played for the penalty and it may have backfired on him but the point is he didn't put (Eastwood's) hand on him and pull his jersey so that's a bit ridiculous to suggest that was the situation."

http://www.nrl.com/NewsViews/LatestNews/NewsArticle/tabid/10874/newsId/54898/Dragons-Bennett-backs-no-try-ruling/Default.aspx

This is the same person that waged a sustained media attack on Jarryd Hayne for milking penalties.

"I just think that defenders shouldn't be impeded from making their way to make a tackle - intentionally or unintentionally."

Wayne Bennett has probably been the single biggest influence in the obstruction rule has becoming such a problem in the NRL. The attack of Bennett coached teams has been based on defenders being deliberately impeded, with plays often involving several "offensive tacklers".

He doesn't mind using the media to push his own agendas.

 

[Collateral]

You dribbler, wipe the sh*t off your chin, the REFS BOSS has come out and said it was a WRONG CALL :crazy:

Sorry, didnt know I wasnt allowed to have an opinion.

So the ref's boss has never been wrong has he? Wake up mate, you have no idea.

 

[Gaba]

Sorry, didnt know I wasnt allowed to have an opinion.

So the ref's boss has never been wrong has he? Wake up mate, you have no idea.

Also the day following the game he admitted without talking to the officials and watching the replay fully he came up with his opinion

Which on monday could be proved wrong by his officials at the meeting , he should resign for coming out publicly bagging his own official without knowing the reasons

it shows he has no confidence in them at all even though the officials he bagged could end up being right