Steven Clark is a f*in disgrace

[fred92]

So Soward delibertaley runs into Eastwood, realises he has no chance of catching Patten, then while Eastwood is behind him, pretends like he was impeded.

All the while Eastwood did nothing but stand there

Steven Clark certainly does know the rules so do the guys in the video box. The dogs were just rorted, dont take it personly Game Breaker, it happens to teams every week.

 

[innsaneink]

And Idris didnt make the line for the "try" he scored.

He did....youre getting confused with the line, and then the paintwork for the toyota sign painted ingoal.....its decieving

 

[thehattrickrabbit]

True. It evened out.

The right result.

You support AFL right?

 

[ByRd]

any dragon fan that tries to justify it is just plain bias. That was a fair try and it was the worst decision made in a long time and for it to decide the game was just a disgrace and i hope Clark isnt seen in the box again.

Leaving the ground all dragon fans knew it and they were saying we were unlucky, an absolute disgusting decision and i am so f'ing annoyed and pissed off

 

[RL1908]

[By posting here I am in no way condoning the title of this thread.]

Soward appeared to have the opportunity to run straight across field and attempt to cut Patten off. Eastwood was at that point off-side, but clearly had no impact on Soward being able to run forward or across field, or even upfield really.

By the time Soward decided to instead head upfield back towards his own goal line, Patten had already gone past Eastwood.

That means Eastwood was on-side, before Soward and he "collided".

I don't think it is possible under the rules for an on-side player in the ball-carrying team to be guilty of obstructing a defender coming from behind him.

 

[Loudstrat]

Was the penalty for holding back or off side?

 

[thehattrickrabbit]

[By posting here I am in no way condoning the title of this thread.]

Soward appeared to have the opportunity to run straight across field and attempt to cut Patten off. Eastwood was at that point off-side, but clearly had no impact on Soward being able to run forward or across field, or even upfield really.

By the time Soward decided to instead head upfield back towards his own goal line, Patten had already gone past Eastwood.

That means Eastwood was on-side, before Soward and he "collided".

I don't think it is possible under the rules for an on-side player in the ball-carrying team to be guilty of obstructing a defender coming from behind him.

You are a genius. You should be a video ref next week in place of Clarke.

 

[Game_Breaker]

And Idris didnt make the line for the "try" he scored.

lol, Archer was right there

Im sure he had a better view then anyone else

 

[Eddie.]

Diabolical. Disgraceful from Steve Clark. I knew he would say NO Try, he has always been pathetic.

 

[Ike E Bear]

whether soward milked it or not they are the rules, eastwood stopped soward from having a chance from getting to patten. go u dragons

Bullsh1t!

I was hoping the Dragons would win, but that was a terrible, terrible way to win.

What Soward did, in my personal opinion, was no better than cheating.

He DEFINITELY could have made an attempt at tackling Patten. He obviously realised that he's such a poor defender that he'd have a better chance at stopping a try by milking.

At the time, I said to my wife that if I was Bennett I'd kick Soward's a$$ for that pathetic attempt at a milking (Eastwood wasn't between him and Patten and didn't grab him in any way) instead of trying to make the tackle. In the end, though, it won the Dragons two competition points.

 

[manly40gimps0]

will be interesting to see what bill harrigan has to say...... dogs were rorted big time

 

[taxidriver]

ennis offside in the same passage of play

right result

anyone who says he wasnt is blind

 

[thehattrickrabbit]

In my opinion, Soward needs to be suspended for bringing the game into disrespute. What he did tonight was a professional foul and a dog one at that.

The NRL should consider suspending him on two counts, Bad sportsmanship and bringing the game into disrespute.

Like the above poster said, It's no better than *.

 

[RL1908]

Was the penalty for holding back or off side?

I didn't hear anyone on Ch9 or ABC radio explain what it was for. If it was for holding back, then fair enough (though I don't think he was held by Eastwood).

However, if it was for an obstruction, then I can't see how an on-side player behind the ball-carrier can be guilty of obstructing. Team mates supporting/behind a ball-carrier can and do obstruct chasing defenders who are coming from behind - and as far as I know that is legal - if it's not, then the game would be impossible to play and rule upon.

 

[aussie7798]

they have called those penalties all year right or wrong (almost certainly wrong) at least they showed some cinsistency

 

[brokendigit]

Does anyone categorically know whether the penalty was for an obstruction, or for Eastwood grabbing Soward's jersey (even momentarily)?

 

[PARRA_FAN]

It just goes to show how impossible it is to score tries because of the video referees. Why have them? Theyre just gonna screw up decisions and the whole game.

If a try looks pretty obvious its a fair try, just when you know the referee goes upstairs there's always that slightest doubt that the video referee wont give it.

Soward ran into Eastwood who was standing his ground and have every opportunity to get to Patten.

And dont give me the "oh but its part of the rules" business. What a crock of sh*t. That is an obvious try. The rule is a the player on the attacking team without possesion of the ball cant take out a defender. Well Eastwood didnt, Soward obviously milked it.

I didnt back the Bulldogs but they can consider themselves very unlucky after tonight. Won't surprise me if Kevin Moore blows up at the press conference, and once again a $10k fine. :roll: How about this MR gallop instead of fining coaches, take action against the officials.

We had the same issues last weekend, and once again we're gonna have the same issues this weekend, and it was only 1 game into the round.

Now wonder people walk away from the game.

 

[Wests is Best]

I am bewildered by that decision. I never had faith In Steven Clark when he was an on field referee and that opinion still stands now that he is in the video ref box.
I'm not saying that he is a biased cheat toward or against any particular side, but I do believe he enjoys the power that being a referee entails and I also believe that he gets off on the controversy that his decisions are capable of creating. He was right in his element tonight while he was considering that preposterous decision.

 

[RL1908]

they have called those penalties all year right or wrong (almost certainly wrong) at least they showed some cinsistency

They have when the defenders have been between their own goal line and the ball-carrier, but not when the ball-carrier is between the defender and the defender's own goal line.

There is a difference.

It's impossible to obstruct an off-side defender.

 

[Ribs]

Pretty much sums up Soward...

Ha ha ha tosser. Go Saints.