That Penalty

[Blood Shot Eyes]

Thought the penalty that was awarded to the Roosters (for back chatting) in front of the posts was one of the worst decisions I have seen for a long time....yes I agree that referees are there to do a job and should be respected but to give what should have been a match winning 2 points at that stage of the game was a complete over reaction......If Sowie had said ''He was held you efffing idiot" then fair enough but he clearly said "He was effing held"...big difference imo...would hate to see a penalty given like that in a GF.

 

[2010Dragons]

Cheecin was menstruating and got emotionally unbalance ...PMS

 

[Handy]

I am of the opinion that no ref should decide the winner of the game with a soft penalty like that. It's understandable that Soward, or any other player for any team in that situation, would be pissed off. To call a penalty for that was just moronic.

 

[R&WTILLIDIE]

Totally agree, these dumb merkin referees think they are bigger than the game,

He's a f**king c**k sucking wanker!

 

[God-King Dean]

I have no problem with the penalty for dissent. Soward was screaming "HE WAS F*CKING HELD!" in his face.

What I do have problem with was:
1. Vidot was held.
2. Weyman's 'knock-on' was a clear as day strip by Friend.

 

[R&WTILLIDIE]

I have no problem with the penalty for dissent. Soward was screaming "HE WAS F*CKING HELD!" in his face.

What I do have problem with was:
1. Vidot was held.
2. Weyman's 'knock-on' was a clear as day strip by Friend.

I disagree mate, I thought Vidot wasn't held and it was a fair drop out. Soward shouldn't have sworn at the ref but the ref should have told Soward to f**k off instead of giving away a penalty. If Soward continued then he should of given the penalty.

Weyman's knock on was a strip...Everyone saw it except the refs...these pricks ruin the game

 

[Minh]

I can't stand Chechin what a hero he was trying to be, but what an amazing win by us.

 

[Minh]

Can't believe they missed the Weyman strip too.

 

[Blood Shot Eyes]

I have no problem with the penalty for dissent. Soward was screaming "HE WAS F*CKING HELD!" in his face.

Obviously you have the right to your opinion...but I wonder if you would have the same opinion if we had lost by 2.....surely theres a difference between dissent with intent (verbally abusing the ref) or a player sounded off with frustration at such a crucial stage of the match......for mine it was a gross over reaction.....years ago you couldnt kick at goal from a bad scrum feed because they didnt want a result to be made from a kick...not the same I know but could end up with the same result.

 

[Rodent]

I disagree mate, I thought Vidot wasn't held and it was a fair drop out. Soward shouldn't have sworn at the ref but the ref should have told Soward to f**k off instead of giving away a penalty. If Soward continued then he should of given the penalty.

Weyman's knock on was a strip...Everyone saw it except the refs...these pricks ruin the game

According to the laws of the game, the ref should have called held.

Section 2(a) on page 23.

Moving tackled player
2(a) Where opponents do not make a tackle effective in the
quickest possible manner but attempt to push, pull or
carry the player in possession, it is permissible for
colleagues of the tackled player to lend their weight in
order to avoid losing ground. Immediately this happens
the referee should call “Held”.

 

[ebbedfred]

I think in the context of the game the penalty was an over reaction, but at the same time Soward did get in his face, BUT here is the irony:
If Soward doesn't give that penalty, Roosters get a drop out, run down more clock, maybe slot over a field goal and we prob lose that game. As it turned out, giving that penalty away was the best thing that happened to us, we score from the kickoff and come home with a wet sail. That penalty as it turned out gave us field position and the ball back....Sowards a tactical genius. haha

 

[Blood Shot Eyes]

I can't stand Chechin what a hero he was trying to be, but what an amazing win by us.

Thing is Minh would they have given a penalty in a GF...answer NO
given a penalty in a SOO...answer NO
given a penalty in a Test Match...answer NO

 

[TheRev]

- The Penalty was the wrong call, especially considering the heat of that moment.. and it was literally 2 seconds Soward had in front of him, he couldn't have gotten more than 3 words out... it should not have decided the game (which it would have in 99 of 100 games).
- There were a lot of 50/50 Decisions which im ok to cop (a couple for getting dragged back into the ingoal, we won some, we lost some), but the Weyman one was terrible, it was out in the open, and could not have been any clearer in the TV Coverage too.

 

[64 Dragon]

I have no problem with the penalty for dissent. Soward was screaming "HE WAS F*CKING HELD!" in his face.

What I do have problem with was:
1. Vidot was held.
2. Weyman's 'knock-on' was a clear as day strip by Friend.

Dead set right about Weyman. The ball was knocked out of his grasp. I was there I saw it. The blind guy (ref) didn't.

 

[The Nick]

That penalty 100% failed Phil Gould test of "would you give it in a Grand Final?" complete over-reaction and damn near decided the result.

 

[Stinkler]

I have no problem with that penalty being given.
I do have a problem with it (hypothetically) not being given in a Grand Final.

Good win for you guys.
Congrats.

 

[FlameThrower]

Amazing win and what an atmosphere,,,this should have been on free to air. But what did CH-9 have on instead at 4pm? Kitchen Wiz??????? Surely this is another example of the lead broadcaster not giving a rats about the game and especially such an important game on the NRL calendar? It was set-up perectly, 4PM start goes straight into 6pm news and a special day that always draws a big crowd and an exciting game...........

 

[64 Dragon]

Amazing win and what an atmosphere,,,this should have been on free to air. But what did CH-9 have on instead at 4pm? Kitchen Wiz??????? Surely this is another example of the lead broadcaster not giving a rats about the game and especially such an important game on the NRL calendar? It was set-up perectly, 4PM start goes straight into 6pm news and a special day that always draws a big crowd and an exciting game...........

They don't want to show these matches because if it goes into extra time it cuts into their precious National Nine News. This would give Channel Seven a boost in the ratings. I hope the next tv contract is won by another channel, say Channel Ten. Seven would have problems showing League, AFL and the V8s all at the same time. Nine have been treating us like peasants for years.

 

[Father Ted]

Just wondering if Foxtel have the rights maybe Nine are not allowed to broadcast it?

 

[Willow]

I have no problem with the penalty for dissent. Soward was screaming "HE WAS F*CKING HELD!" in his face.

He wasn't being nearly that emotional or anywhere near his 'face'.

Referee just lost the plot.