Surprise Surprise

[Rutager]

So Ryan should be suspended because Ryles is soft?

 

[thommo4pm]

the calls that went against the dragons were 50/50 at worst, and it's the attacking team that gets the benefit of the doubt so the calls were right. I actually would have given both tries without benefit of the doubt because I couldn't see anything that should have stopped them. It looked to me like SBW had the ball before Morrin got there, and it looked to me like Hazem caught the ball again before grounding it (he even came up off the ground with the ball still wedged between his arm and body). There was some doubt to both but the way I saw it both looked sweet.

BTW I don't think the attacking team is the team with the ball, it's the team who's in the opponents half. If dragons had the ball from the same scrum and passed it into the ref it's a dogs scrum feed isn't it?

Haven't mentioned El-Masri's grounding, have been talking about the push in the back on Soward from Millard.
Precedent was set last year in Dragons v Brisbane semi final with a no try to Saints and then the following week against Manly when Bickerstaff was deemed to have pushed Orford in the back.
Suggest you read the rules posted on the previous page with respect to the strip.
Creagh still had his hand on the ball as Morrin made contact.

 

[thommo4pm]

So Ryan should be suspended because Ryles is soft?

:roll:

That is the most ridiculous post I have read.
See how you go getting hit around the jaw with a swinging arm.

 

[Rutager]

:roll:

That is the most ridiculous post I have read.
See how you go getting hit around the jaw with a swinging arm.

You dont read your own posts? :crazy:

 

[jimmythehand]

Haven't mentioned El-Masri's grounding, have been talking about the push in the back on Soward from Millard.
Precedent was set last year in Dragons v Brisbane semi final with a no try to Saints and then the following week against Manly when Bickerstaff was deemed to have pushed Orford in the back.
Suggest you read the rules posted on the previous page with respect to the strip.
Creagh still had his hand on the ball as Morrin made contact.

well let me just tear this gem apart.

It was recently decided that the interpretation regarding "blockers" was that they were okay as long as they were in position early. Soward was a blocker (he was not even looking at the ball) and arrived very very late. So the penalty should have been given against him for obstructing the Bulldogs runners - advantage, play-on try.

As for Creagh still having his hand on the ball as Morrin made contact, who says that that means the ball hasn't already been stolen? I'd interpret the ball being stolen as when the other player has more control of it. Let's find a similar example - two players lying on the ground after a tackle where one tried to steal the ball, and the ball in both players arms. The ref doesn't say "you had the ball first, it's still yours because you've got a hand on it". He looks at who has the majority of the ball, and it is there's for the keeping. Once SBW had the majority of the ball I say Creagh has had it stolen, he doesn't need to stop touching it for it to be lost.

 

[thommo4pm]

well let me just tear this gem apart.

It was recently decided that the interpretation regarding "blockers" was that they were okay as long as they were in position early. Soward was a blocker (he was not even looking at the ball) and arrived very very late. So the penalty should have been given against him for obstructing the Bulldogs runners - advantage, play-on try.

As for Creagh still having his hand on the ball as Morrin made contact, who says that that means the ball hasn't already been stolen? I'd interpret the ball being stolen as when the other player has more control of it. Let's find a similar example - two players lying on the ground after a tackle where one tried to steal the ball, and the ball in both players arms. The ref doesn't say "you had the ball first, it's still yours because you've got a hand on it". He looks at who has the majority of the ball, and it is there's for the keeping. Once SBW had the majority of the ball I say Creagh has had it stolen, he doesn't need to stop touching it for it to be lost.

Suggest you watch the replay mate.
Soward did not even look to see if Millard was coming near him, had his back to Millard the whole time.
Soward was in front of Nightingale well before Millard was on the scene....keep the gems coming.
This does not give Millard the right to push Soward into Nightingale.

Did you watch the segment on the footy show where Sterlo just tore both tries apart....did you see the still frame he showed where Creagh still had the ball in his right hand and BOTH Dogs players had made contact?
Nice work mate, it was there for all to see and Sterlo confirmed what all Dragons fans already know...both tries should not have been awarded.

 

[Dragon]

bullsh*t.

How do you explain some of the utterly shameful decisions the Warriors have received this year? Two rubbish send offs, a billion legit tries dissallowed (and usually acknowledged by the NRL as being wrong and a few partridges in pear trees.

thats my point champ, its been happening to all sides. Personally i cant wait for the refs to f**k up the finals series.

Oh and for the SBW try, ther dragons were the attacking team, therefore we shouldve got benefit of the doubt.

 

[[FKN-SIK]]

:roll:

That is the most ridiculous post I have read.
See how you go getting hit around the jaw with a swinging arm.

Jaw? Swinging arm?

hahahaha

Nowhere near it

p.s. Creagh should have used his brain and secured the ball with 2 hands when 5 metres out from his own line running at SBW

 

[Game_Breaker]

You're a whinger thommo

Send offs are for reckless play. Ryan was not being reckless, and Ryles got hit in the head because he was falling and had nothing to do with reckless play.

There was no clear image that El Masri knocked on, the replay showed he regained control of the ball, but the grounding was not 100% clear so BOTB was given.

and SBW had more control of the ball than Creagh when Morrin made intitial contact. That is a 50/50 call I say

 

[>zuzu<]

Sook all you want - get over it soon though.

There have been tonnes of dubious call this year.

Jarrad Hickey V Knights round 1 - Definite try - DISALLOWED - Knights score. 12 point turnaround

Wade McKinnon no try V Cowboys a few weeks back - No doubt in a fans mind it was a try

McKinnons "knee" send off - Worst call i have seen in a long time.

Cop it on the chin mate. Your seasons over. Look forward to next year.

And Ryan sent off?

Your a joke mate. You expect him to change direction when he was falling in the tackle?

Great one mate. Your ignorance astounds me

 

[Dutchy]

I agree with the officials on both situations.

SBW strip - TRY, even if Morrin did touch..TOUCH Creagh it would have had no effect on the strip at all. Stupidity by Creagh IMO.

Ryan hit on Ryles - Not send off worthy, its incidents like that is the reason the 5 min sin bin should be introduced.

Just another thing, I said during the match, if that was Mick Crocker, Steve Matai or Adrian Morley, they would have been sent from the field before Ryles hit the ground.

 

[Dragon]

Ryan hit on Ryles - Not send off worthy, its incidents like that is the reason the 5 min sin bin should be introduced.

Just another thing, I said during the match, if that was Mick Crocker, Steve Matai or Adrian Morley, they would have been sent from the field before Ryles hit the ground.

Why wasnt it worthy of a 10 minute binning? We were down to a 3 man bench thanks to his reckless swinging arm. And like you say, if it were Morley or even Ryles on another player, they wouldve been sent. Didnt know there was a 'nice guy' rule in league

 

[ouwet]

Why wasnt it worthy of a 10 minute binning?

Because there is no such rule.

 

[Dragon]

Because there is no such rule.

youre telling me theres no 10 minute sin bin anymore? :shock:

 

[jimmythehand]

dragon you must be the only "fan" i know that doesn't know you can't be sin-binned for offences like that.

Who cares if Creagh still was touching the ball when Morrin made contact. SBW already had it by then.

Soward was never in a stationery blocking position, he was always moving so he could not have got "there" before Millard as he was never "there".

I'm glad you're not a video referee.

 

[jimmythehand]

Oh and for the SBW try, ther dragons were the attacking team, therefore we shouldve got benefit of the doubt.

BZZZZZ. Wrong again dragon. The attacking team is the one in the opponents territory.

 

[tiger_nick]

Surprise Surprise...dragons fans whinging after a loss. thommo4pm falls into category A of st.george illawarra fans. for those that dont know there are two categories.

category A:

this is the fan who believes that the nrl, the refs, the fbi, harry potter, buddah, paris hilton and bin laden have conspired together so that the saints never win a comp. its an actual fact that saints have NEVER lost a game because the other team played better then them. saints can beaten by 50 and there would have been a call in the 57th minute when they were down 38-0 that would have turned the game. but no it was wrong and they were robbed. they have a filing system that has all refereeing errors from every saints game ever played. Documented like this:

St. George V Newtown 1974 Round 8:

7th Minute - forward pass from newtown not called leading to a try.

15th minute - saints score but the ref made us take the conversion 30cm further out to the left then it should have been and we subsequently missed the goal

34th minute - newtown player played the ball not directly facing the try line. they scored 3 sets later.

64th minute - dragons penalised for being offside when we werent

71st minute - newtown not called for a high tackle

and so on....you get the point. it dosent matter how long ago these games were they can be brought up in any discussion about the dragons. no other team gets bad ref calls, only the dragons.


category B - these are the fan that want to end the merger after every loss. they want everyone from doust to brown to the ball boys to the waiters at st.george leagues sacked. its illawarras and the managements fault that they lose all the time. illawarra have a losing tradition because they've never won a comp and thats why the merger is a failure. this despite the fact that suring the time illawarra were in the comp (1982-1998) st.george won as many titles as the steelers did. zero. the steelers however managed a wid week cup victory. so during the time they were in the comp, they actually won more silverwear then the dragons. however its the illawarra side that has the losong cultre. ohh and also they provide all the players to the club. but that dosnt matter either.

 

[jimmythehand]

Suggest you watch the replay mate.
Soward did not even look to see if Millard was coming near him, had his back to Millard the whole time.
Soward was in front of Nightingale well before Millard was on the scene....keep the gems coming.
This does not give Millard the right to push Soward into Nightingale.

Okay I just had a look at the replay again, and it just makes this post even funnier. Soward was never in position to be a blocker, was never trying to catch the ball, so would have been the one penalised. He was still running back when he got the little pat on the back. Play on, try.

 

[cyborg]

dragons = chokers

 

[jimmythehand]

Surprise Surprise...dragons fans whinging after a loss.

look i think you could say that about any set of fans, and I HATE it when I think my team's been dudded by the ref too. I just find it hard to accept that Dragons fans can think there was conclusive proof that neither try should have been awarded. I think there was some doubt in both tries, but no conclusive evidence so the referees are under obligation to award the tries.

The number of people on both sides of the argument is a good indication of no conclusive proof, ie doubt, ie benefit of the doubt, ie tries.