Toovey lets it rip

[Meapro Ham]

Delibertately? :lol: f**king please, not even tinfoil hat Toovey thought it was deliberate.

Yeah deliberate. Nothing to do with tin foil hats. Just cleverly exploiting a loophole in the rules. Toovey probably knows it too, just doesn't want to give him credit for being clever enough to do it.

Watch it again. It's a very strange pointless kick if he wasn't trying to hit the ref. Deliberate for sure I'd say.

 

[Loose Cannon]

what if the ref was at fault in getting in the way. too harsh to penalise the attacking team.

replay the tackle from where the ref gets hit i say. sure, the attacking team gets an extra play, but it's got to be better all-round than a whole set.
.

This is the only option which doesn't disadvantage either side significantly (only 1 extra play to defend, call time off and allow both to set), whilst not completely nullifying the play which has resulted in the issue.

I can get on board with this. It is no more than a 7 tackle set which is already a feature.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Yeah deliberate. Nothing to do with tin foil hats. Just cleverly exploiting a loophole in the rules. Toovey probably knows it too, just doesn't want to give him credit for being clever enough to do it.

Watch it again. It's a very strange pointless kick if he wasn't trying to hit the ref. Deliberate for sure I'd say.

Get off the pingers.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

What gets me is that year on year we change meaningless rules, seemingly for the hell of it. But there are some shockers that need changing immediately and are never brought up:-

1. If a ball hits the referee, the last play the ball is replayed.
2. If a pass or a kick hits a player in the head it should be ruled as if it comes off the players hands. Sometimes you can be rewarded for a poor piece of skill.
3. If a player charges the ball down and the other team regains possession, it should not be a tackle restart. The set should only go back to the tackle it came off. So if it came off the last tackle, the last tackle is started where the tackle occurs. You are rewarded for kicking in an outhouse position, and the defender loses advantage from a gutsy effort.

All agreed... It does need to be fixed.

There is no point bitching and moaning. The rule is what the rule is. If it was deliberate, then it was well played.

 

[Cammo]

Yeah deliberate. Nothing to do with tin foil hats. Just cleverly exploiting a loophole in the rules. Toovey probably knows it too, just doesn't want to give him credit for being clever enough to do it.

Watch it again. It's a very strange pointless kick if he wasn't trying to hit the ref. Deliberate for sure I'd say.

Reynolds is not a skilled enough kicker to aim at the ref from that far away and hit him.

It was Josh Morris who told the ref the rule, I doubt Reynolds even knew it

 

[Meapro Ham]

Reynolds is not a skilled enough kicker to aim at the ref from that far away and hit him.

It was Josh Morris who told the ref the rule, I doubt Reynolds even knew it

What are you talking about. Reynolds is straight in the refs ear he knows the rule. And it doesn't take much skill to hit someone standing 10 metres away.

You all need to watch it again. Watch how he runs towards the ref with intent and kicks it straight at him. Totally pointless kick unless he was trying to do that.

 

[Ron's_Mate]

I have known some moaners in our game over many years, and at this point in time I'm struggling to remember a bigger moaner than Toovey.

Phil Gould. Is he going through male menopause?

 

[firechild]

You had plenty of chances to win the game but couldn't get it done

I'm not saying the wrong call was made but it is a really stupid rule. One that has never been addressed because of how rarely something like this happens.

 

[magpie4ever]

Anyone else notice this?

Blair scores the final try about 5 metres in from the sideline, than the ruckus happens, try eventually awarded but the conversion is taken from about 1 metre from the sideline.

WTF, it's riDICulous.

 

[butchmcdick]

I'm not saying the wrong call was made but it is a really stupid rule. One that has never been addressed because of how rarely something like this happens.

There is nothing wrong with the rule

Your side didn't lose because of it

I get it's a kick in the guts to lose but at the end of the day if manly don't miss a gazillion tackles in the first half they win

 

[magpie4ever]

Regards the rule.

It was there when the scrum was contested, at least giving the defenders some hope of winning the ball.

Now, it is just a f**ker of a rule.

 

[firechild]

There is nothing wrong with the rule

Seems very few people agree with you.

Your side didn't lose because of it

No, not specifically because of that but gifting the Dogs field goal position late in the game had a huge impact.

I get it's a kick in the guts to lose but at the end of the day if manly don't miss a gazillion tackles in the first half they win

Completely agree with this. The first 20 minutes had a much bigger impact than the last 10.

 

[Nice Beaver]

There is nothing wrong with the rule

Your side didn't lose because of it

I get it's a kick in the guts to lose but at the end of the day if manly don't miss a gazillion tackles in the first half they win

Well firstly, who here is saying that the rule cost Manly the game? You seem to be the only one inferring that from what I can see.

All people are saying is its a bullshit rule that needs changing.

You would be in the VAST minority thinking there is nothing wrong with that rule.

 

[NRL_Fanatic]

anyone else notice this?

Blair scores the final try about 5 metres in from the sideline, than the ruckus happens, try eventually awarded but the conversion is taken from about 1 metre from the sideline.

Wtf, it's ridiculous.

this +1

 

[Desert Qlder]

"Waaaaaaah, my team lost so we have to change the rules."

Toovey and Manly fans could whinge under concrete.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Regards the rule.

It was there when the scrum was contested, at least giving the defenders some hope of winning the ball.

Good point.

The uncontested scrum is the main reason the rule is not acceptable to the majority. It is amazing how one change in philosophy 20+ years ago results in the flaws behind obscure rules being exposed now.

 

[2012....Sharks Year]

f**kk is that all.....I thought Toovey must have farted at the presser!

 

[ram raid]

Manly complaining after a game .... the sun rises in the east and the trees are green. Everything is in harmony.

 

[The Engineers Room]

It does seem unreasonable that the bulldogs got six more tackles after it hit the ref. simple rule change: take the play back to the last play the ball and restart that tackle, just like they do when players don't hear a held call.

Toovey's just a born whinger. Even I f he was being showered by $100 notes and being tit f**k by kate upton he'd still whinge at his press conference.

I agree on the rule change but surprisingly he wasn't upset at the things that went his sides way like the strip after the tackle was completed that gave them possession in the Canterbury half.

 

[The Engineers Room]

Good point.

The uncontested scrum is the main reason the rule is not acceptable to the majority. It is amazing how one change in philosophy 20+ years ago results in the flaws behind obscure rules being exposed now.

It is only because it happened to Manly in a big game that it is now an issue.

I was a referee and when they taught this rule everyone said, "But that's not fair". I already knew the rule and have had player try and execute a play like this when I was refereeing, that is why I never got hit because I was always looking out for it.