Surprise Surprise

[petetheileet]

just watched the game on tv for the first time...man was i being nice to Cummins before.....

plenty of dogey calls both in the box and on the field...the officials kept the dogs in the game....right up until the same set of six Morris dropped the ball and lost us the game

 

[Dogaholic]

The El Masri try was the only one that i thought was wrong and that we were lucky to get our way. Hazem grounded the ball no problems. But the push on the Dragons player hindered the dude jumping for the ball. Penalty right there.

Sonny bill's was a try. Ryan was unlucky that Ryles was falling so I think it was fair that he stayed on. There has been some b/s sends off this year and if they were going to be consistent they would have marched Ryan too.

 

[jimmythehand]

just watched the game on tv for the first time...man was i being nice to Cummins before.....

plenty of dogey calls both in the box and on the field...the officials kept the dogs in the game....right up until the same set of six Morris dropped the ball and lost us the game

so pete, what did you think of the "knock-on" from the kick-off that gave dragons 5 minutes of momentum at a crucial point in the game that they didn't take advantage of?

 

[Timmah]

petetheeileet... you cannot be serious.

YOUR TEAM WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

 

[RufusRex]

generally if the ball touches a player, lands behind them then rolls in front of them it is not a knock on

 

[Willow]

so pete, what did you think of the "knock-on" from the kick-off that gave dragons 5 minutes of momentum at a crucial point in the game that they didn't take advantage of?

lol. You mean as opposed to the Roberts knock-on which led to a try the Bulldogs? You won and all you can do is whinge about it.

There were plenty of dodgy calls - counting them up won't favour your argument.

The Bulldogs got the rub of green. Celebrate the moment.

 

[jimmythehand]

i've already posted before that I thought it was a knock-back too. believe me i am celebrating the moment, i just can't believe people think the two tries weren't 50/50 calls. When you agree with the referees it can hardly be called whinging, I think you're confused as to what the term means because the only whingers are the dragons.

anyway, cyas in 2008.

 

[Willow]

i've already posted before that I thought it was a knock-back too.

There's no way the Roberts incident could have been a knock-back.

If you're referring to the Chase incident, then why did you bring it up?

believe me i am celebrating the moment,

Yep... you're the life of the party.

i just can't believe people think the two tries weren't 50/50 calls.

You must wander around in disbelief every day.
People are entitled to their view.

When you agree with the referees it can hardly be called whinging

LOL. You're the one trying to convince yourself that Soward should have been penalised for obstruction.

anyway, cyas in 2008.

You going somewhere?

 

[jimmythehand]

yep to the semi-finals - unlike the dragons and their fans.

 

[MadDogMason]

Man you Dragons fans are joking if you think your team gets the refs crap week in week out. The 'Dogs are the most hated team in the comp and it's showed everyweek we take to the field. There is always going to be calls that go the other way it dosnt matter what team you are so get used to it. BTW Sonnys try came off a beautiful one on one strip. He had control before Morrin got into the tackle. Hazems try was BOTD and if you cant see why then you need your eyes checked. There will always be crap calls.. get used to it. I know us D'Dogs fans are.

 

[Hutty1986]

yep to the semi-finals - unlike the dragons and their fans.

LOL, where you'll last about 5 minutes by the looks of it. Dogs were absolutely gifted that game by the refs.

But still having said that,a team like Melbourne would have gone on with the job. If we had have displayed that sort of killer instinct, we'd have rightfully won easily

 

[Dogaholic]

I am not that confident that we will make the 8. We have a lot of players missing and a tough run home.

Hope this Helps.

 

[jimmythehand]

dogaholic i wouldn't be that confident either except every other team battling it out is going just as crap as we are. Some even more crap like the Dragons (ha ha ha).

 

[jimmythehand]

LOL, where you'll last about 5 minutes by the looks of it.

yeah that's what everyone said in 95 too.

 

[gregstar]

boring!

blaming refs has moved from a pastime to a genuine career.

whilst it provides the basis for a chat, saints clearly lost that game on their own.

it seems that only a thrashing can seperate two teams because when it's a close game, it's the ref's fault!


i had a different view to some decisions, but my opinion is only that. a ref may make mistakes, but no more than the 26 buffoons on the field.

it sucked losing a game that we were fairly dominant in for 90% of, but the remaining percentage was the crucial part when safety-first was needed. we f*cked it up, the dogs capitalised. stiff sh*t, we haven't threatened an earwig all season.


i'm just stoked that we've got two promising halves for '08. '07 is now a match-conditions training run.

 

[_Johnsy]

really. perhaps you'd like a rule book for xmas then?

Apologies champ,

Not the 1st time I have been wrong & it won't be the last.

IMO the rule needs to be changed, surely the tream who has the ball and therefore attacking, is the attacking team?

 

[jimmythehand]

actually i think we're both wrong now I'm pretty sure the benefit of the doubt rule is like what they call a 'playing condition' in cricket - it's not part of the official rules of rugby league. It is the official rules which define the attacking team as the one having territorial advantage.

The "interpretations" document which I've now read makes various references to "attacking teams" and "attacking players" and if you read it, it is obvious it is referring to the team with the ball, not the team with territorial advantage as defined in the official rules.

In the case of the 'benefit of the doubt' ruling, it says the 'attacking team' but I think the correct interpretation is that it's the team that scores the try. Not the team with the territorial advantage or necessarily the team with the ball at the moment the indiscretion takes place, but the team who has potentially scored the try.

The NRL in their usual incompetence have failed to define things properly in their document (ie what is the attacking team). But from what I remember from discussions and reasons why the rule was introduced the attacking team is referring to the team that scored the try.