Bucket said: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
Bucket said: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
Willow said: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.
Bucket said: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
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.jimmythehand said: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.
Willow said: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 said: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
There was no possibility of that.jimmythehand said: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.
I watched the replay.jimmythehand said: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?
Yes, its called a discussion forum Timmerr.Timmah said:Is this argument seriously still going?
LOL. Coming from you that's hilarious.Timmah said:What's the merit in arguing coin-toss decisions?