Surprise Surprise

[_Johnsy]

so if i am running the ball 1m on my side of the 1/2 way line, I am not on the attacking team ?

 

[Bucket]

the suggestion that the attacking team is anything but the team with the ball is ridiculous. how can the team without the ball possibly be attacking if by definition they are defending their line seeing as they can't score without the ball how can they possibly be the attacking side?!#
its pretty clear cut to me and any sane supporter of rugby league, if you have the ball you are attacking, if you don't your obviously defending

 

[STEVE R]

the suggestion that the attacking team is anything but the team with the ball is ridiculous. how can the team without the ball possibly be attacking if by definition they are defending their line seeing as they can't score without the ball how can they possibly be the attacking side?!#
its pretty clear cut to me and any sane supporter of rugby league, if you have the ball you are attacking, if you don't your obviously defending

According to the rules, apparently not!

 

[Smartman]

the suggestion that the attacking team is anything but the team with the ball is ridiculous. how can the team without the ball possibly be attacking if by definition they are defending their line seeing as they can't score without the ball how can they possibly be the attacking side?!#
its pretty clear cut to me and any sane supporter of rugby league, if you have the ball you are attacking, if you don't your obviously defending

Im pretty sure if your inside your 20 with the ball then you are the defending team.

 

[_Johnsy]

anyone have a link to this particular rule.

 

[mongoose]

refs are a disgrace!

raiders would undefeated if it wasn't for bad reffing! :crazy:

 

[jimmythehand]

I know you'd like all defenders to get out of the way but its not that straight forward. Again, the video ref and the referee were not looking for an obstruction... please try and follow the logic.

You're saying Saints should have been penalised, when the video ref was actually looking for ways to award the Bulldogs a try.

Think about it.

In post # 72 you were replying to me, correct?

Oh OK, so when you said the word "you're" in replying to me, you were in fact replying to other posters.

In that case, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

It wasn't a case of soward getting out of the way - he got in the way intentionally by making a beeline straight for his player in order to obstruct the defenders. Which is okay if you get there early according to "interpretation", but he got there about as late as you possibly could.

what i'm saying is that the dragons can't get a penalty if they caused an infringement first, and I said that in relation to 'dragons' post that he wasn't referring to El Masri's grounding for it not being a try, he was referring to the penalty the dragon's should have got for the push in the back.

Obviously if the Bulldogs are due a penalty you then look for advantage, and scoring a try is obviously a good advantage.

I don't know about the push in the back, if it was sufficient contact and obstructed the play maybe the correct decision could have been no try penalty to the Bulldogs for the obstruction. Obviously the video ref didn't think it obstructed the play as Soward had no intention of catching the ball and I'm happy with that.

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

the suggestion that the attacking team is anything but the team with the ball is ridiculous. how can the team without the ball possibly be attacking if by definition they are defending their line seeing as they can't score without the ball how can they possibly be the attacking side?!#
its pretty clear cut to me and any sane supporter of rugby league, if you have the ball you are attacking, if you don't your obviously defending

I'm not sure if the NRL ever clarified BOTD on something like this. It could be argued that SBW was attacking the football while Hornby wasn't doing anything remotely attacking. Offensive defence. It's a weak reason, but the NRL doesn't mind using weak reasoning to justify things.

In all likelyhood the rule hasn't been clarified due to this situation being overlooked or ruled out as unlikely to ever happen. In the end the Dogs were the team who crossed the line and that made them the attacking team by default regardless of who was in posession during the play in question. Whether it's fair or not is up for debate, and probably will be debated until the next controversial decision.

 

[VictorTheViking]

Everyone told raiders fans to stop whinging when we bitched about dud calls a few weeks ago, time for me to do the same to you.

Stop whinging

 

[Willow]

It wasn't a case of soward getting out of the way - he got in the way intentionally by making a beeline straight for his player in order to obstruct the defenders. Which is okay if you get there early according to "interpretation", but he got there about as late as you possibly could.

what i'm saying is that the dragons can't get a penalty if they caused an infringement first, and I said that in relation to 'dragons' post that he wasn't referring to El Masri's grounding for it not being a try, he was referring to the penalty the dragon's should have got for the push in the back.

Obviously if the Bulldogs are due a penalty you then look for advantage, and scoring a try is obviously a good advantage.

I don't know about the push in the back, if it was sufficient contact and obstructed the play maybe the correct decision could have been no try penalty to the Bulldogs for the obstruction. Obviously the video ref didn't think it obstructed the play as Soward had no intention of catching the ball and I'm happy with that.

You're a little all over the place there jimmy. Basically you think the ref should have ruled no try to El Masri and given a penalty to the Bulldogs.
OK, whatever you say.

 

[Game_Breaker]

I always thought that in a video ref situation when they say BOTB to the attacking team they're referring to the team that potentially scored the try

 

[jimmythehand]

You're a little all over the place there jimmy. Basically you think the ref should have ruled no try to El Masri and given a penalty to the Bulldogs.
OK, whatever you say.

No I think it should have been a try to the dogs. But it was more a possibility that the Dogs would get a penalty than the Dragons if it was a no-try.

 

[jimmythehand]

I always thought that in a video ref situation when they say BOTB to the attacking team they're referring to the team that potentially scored the try

This is more to the point than who the attacking team is defined by territory.

I know that if the ref gets involved in the play then it's a scrum to whoever has the territorial advantage (defined as the attacking team), but this is probably irrelevant when it comes to video ref decisions. You've summed it up perfectly.

 

[Willow]

No I think it should have been a try to the dogs. But it was more a possibility that the Dogs would get a penalty than the Dragons if it was a no-try.

There was no possibility of that.

I'll say it one more time jimmy...

If it was a no-try, then the penalty was going the way of the Dragons.

The refs were not looking for an obstruction from a Dragons player. They gave benefit of the doubt to the Bulldogs after viewing the push from a Bulldogs player.

 

[jimmythehand]

well that's their mistake then, it was clearly an obstruction under the guidelines they recently put in place.

how do you know the benefit of the doubt wasn't for the grounding?

 

[BlueFenix]

To be honest i would be upset if the shoe was on the other foot and we were on the end those calls......



But we weren't..... unlucky... \\\\/

 

[Willow]

well that's their mistake then, it was clearly an obstruction under the guidelines they recently put in place.

how do you know the benefit of the doubt wasn't for the grounding?

I watched the replay.

OK, here's how it panned out...

After the try was scored, the referee initially asked for the video ref to check for the grounding and to check for the off-side.

He did not ask for the video ref to check for an obstruction.

The tape shows that the push was then under scrutiny.

In all, the video ref looked at three things.

1. Off-side
2. The grounding
3. The push

In that order.

The players were all onside. There was no doubt about the grounding, those two were gimmes.

Then there was a delay as the tape then started rolling back to the push from Millard on Soward. The video ref and and broadcast feed are linked.

There were several angles shown and it went on for a while.

It stands to reason that they would not have been looking for a breach from Soward if they were satisfied that the Bulldogs were covered on the first two points.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[Timmah]

Is this argument seriously still going?

None of these decisions cost St George Illawarra the game, their own inability to play the full 80 minutes did.

What's the merit in arguing coin-toss decisions?

 

[Willow]

Is this argument seriously still going?

Yes, its called a discussion forum Timmerr.

Thanks for your input.

What's the merit in arguing coin-toss decisions?

LOL. Coming from you that's hilarious.

 

[taxidriver]

it's clear from this thread bulldog fans have as much integrity as their side.

you won, take the result but don't lower yourselves to being blatant liars.