Surprise Surprise

[ouwet]

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

Not for high shots buddy.

 

[humpy]

Its gonna cost someone a semi or GF, then we might see the league community actually stand together and say enough is enough. The knights didnt get a penalty till the 53rd minute against the Warriors tonight. Sounds familiar to when we played the warriors. Same ref btw. Its becoming clear who the NRL wants in the 8, and its f**king disgraceful.

You are an idiot. At the time Newcastle got that first penalty, the penalty count was 3 - 1 so you cannot say that was overly one sided.

Considering the knights were behind by 30 at the time and the warriors had most of the ball, you would assume that the knights would have given away more penalties.

The knights got lapped by 40, and the ref had nothing to do with it.

 

[humpy]

I must say that Hazems try was not a try, but how did that touchy miss that knock on from the Stain player.

I actually thought Hazem did keep enough control (and I HATE the dogs), but thought the centre pushed Soward in the back into the winger which should have been a penalty.

 

[jimmythehand]

I actually thought Hazem did keep enough control (and I HATE the dogs), but thought the centre pushed Soward in the back into the winger which should have been a penalty.

but it should have been a penalty to the dogs because soward was an obstruction, not a blocker. So the Dragons can't get a penalty from that...

 

[God-King Dean]

great hit by ryles on morrin

but the second effort idiot ryles drove his forearm into his head

watch the replay and u will see it

Played a good part in us losing too.

I think the Ryles big hit followed by a cheap shot screwing ourselves, sums us up when we are playing.

 

[Willow]

but it should have been a penalty to the dogs because soward was an obstruction, not a blocker. So the Dragons can't get a penalty from that...

Well Soward can't evaporate into thin air. I think you'll find Soward was not under video scrutiny for pushing his back into Millard's hand.

 

[ozzy_ozman]

Oh bitch bitch bitch...

Saint Choke should have at least belted us by 20+ but they couldnt do it which definitely tells the story about the season for the steelers.

 

[God-King Dean]

To suggest referees/NRL have it in for Dragons, not wanting em to do well is one of the silliest & most petulant things I've heard on this forum.

 

[Smartman]

Geez the drags supporters that bitch, who gives a flying fekk.

Theres dubious in most if not all games played.

The dogs played one of their worst games of the year and still won. God help Parramatta come fri night :lol:

 

[Dr Crane]

The knights got lapped by 40, and the ref had nothing to do with it.

Some Dragons fans think getting done by 30 is the referees fault.

 

[God-King Dean]

Some Dragons fans think getting done by 30 is the referees fault.

Seems only one tbh.

 

[jimmythehand]

Well Soward can't evaporate into thin air. I think you'll find Soward was not under video scrutiny for pushing his back into Millard's hand.

the point is soward shouldn't have been there. he didn't get in position early enough to be a blocker, so his run was illegal because it was an obstruction. To suggest the Dragons should have got a penalty for him being pushed in the back is ridiculous unless you're not up to speed with the latest "interpretations".

 

[_Johnsy]

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?

SBW try was awarded as benefit of the doubt re: possible strip, so how does the defender get the benefit of the doubt applied to him ?

If you honestly think it is the position on the field which determins who is the attacking team, you need to re-evaluate your mental stability.

 

[_Johnsy]

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

I am not sure if it is stupdity or ignorance, you are an idiot if you truly believe this.

 

[Willow]

the point is soward shouldn't have been there.

He had every right to be there.

he didn't get in position early enough to be a blocker, so his run was illegal because it was an obstruction.

The video ref and the referee weren't looking for an obstruction.

To suggest the Dragons should have got a penalty for him being pushed in the back is ridiculous unless you're not up to speed with the latest "interpretations".

I haven't suggested anything of the sort jimmy.
You were the one suggesting that Saints should have been penalised.
Perhaps you should read back on what I said with your blinkers removed.

 

[STEVE R]

The Sharkies got the wrong end of the pineapple today too.
A couple of Benefit of the Doubt calls went against them and changed the momentum of the game.

NRL Referees are disgraceful. Stephen Clark had a shocker again today.
His arrogance shone through again in the way he treated players.
His inability to distinguish a strip from a dropped ball was astounding.
His future in the NRL should be limited.

 

[jimmythehand]

I am not sure if it is stupdity or ignorance, you are an idiot if you truly believe this.

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

 

[jimmythehand]

He had every right to be there.The video ref and the referee weren't looking for an obstruction.I haven't suggested anything of the sort jimmy.
You were the one suggesting that Saints should have been penalised.
Perhaps you should read back on what I said with your blinkers removed.

Why does he have every right to be there when it has been clearly stipulated that blockers are only legal if they are in position early?

I didn't say you suggested it. Other posters suggested it and that's why I brought the point up.

 

[tiger_nick]

I am not sure if it is stupdity or ignorance, you are an idiot if you truly believe this.

Sorry bud but it is YOU who are incorrect.

 

[Willow]

Why does he have every right to be there when it has been clearly stipulated that blockers are only legal if they are in position early?

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.

I didn't say you suggested it.

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

Other posters suggested it and that's why I brought the point up.

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.