We dead set stank - but Steve Clark is a *goose*.....,

[Freak]

Misty hit the nail on the head. Clarke showed his quality in the Pearson flop ruling when he was the only player in the tackle. :lol:

IMO and I stress MO, I believe Petersen had correctly grounded the ball. If anyone gets a chance to have a look at a replay check the movement of his thumb when grounding. It clearly shows he excerted downward pressure on the ball when grounding and my friends that is all you have to do!! Between that decision and the gift intercept was the difference between 2 ordinary sides!!

Clarkes 10 was appauling but it went both ways.

I think we turned up to play in NZ but the mizerable conditions together with the run of unfortunate refereeing calls made it difficult for the boys to get enthused. I know I wasn't watching!!

 

[junior009]

I understand why the topic had to be edited but I stand by what I wrote.

He probably didn't cost us the game, but he sure didn't help. It's just the latest in a long line of duddings Parra have received at the hands of S. Clark.

 

[Iafeta]

Mate I got a bigger TV than that and I did not at any stage see day light between Petersons hand and the ball.

If Webb would have thrown a pass that was intercepted woud the try have been dissallowed? No it wouldn't have. If Webb knocked on he may have got advantage, but as he had the ball stripped one on one he gets nothing.

The second point, it should have.

Explain to me the advantage the Warriors get from it? That sort of philosophy demands players then if there's an error from the opponents attacking the line to kick it dead, simply because if he drops it after a difficult pick up in his own 10 he's apparently according to your logics had advantage? Yep, under the sticks I'm sure the Warriors were absolutely thrilled with the advantage they got.

Why should avantage be a disallowed notion as a result of a strip as opposed to a knock on? You can't reward a team for a good play, after an error. The ERROR has come first. Your logics astound me.

As for Peterson's, get a tape, watch closely, you'll even see the one part of the hand holding the ball near the end (the tip of his thumbs), come well apart from the ball. While you're at it, watch Pearson's play of the ball throughout the game, and come back to me with a percentage on how many times his foot gets CLOSE to making contact. I'd estimate 25% at best.

God you're a fool.

It's a little thing called 'ball security'.

In a one-on-one strip, the onus is on the ball carrier not to get it stripped. Once it is stripped, there is no advantage unless it travels forward.

Pot...Kettle... Black?

You never ONCE in your tyrade explained how the Warriors got an advantage. Is running 2 metres off your own try line in wet weather an advantage from the oppositions own error?

Give it up already. Or at least come back with a reply to the question, not a "ball security" issue that was not even part of the debate.

 

[Misty Bee]

See what I mean? Sore winners.

I mean we could go on about Witt being poleaxed as Thorman scored, and nothing (bar a pissy little caution) issued. Or the rampant thuggery that Pa'aleasina wrought toward the end. NZ got their fair share of favorable calls.

Anyway, in the end, who f*cking cares, Iafeta. YOU WON. Not happy with that? :roll:

 

[Eelementary]

Mate I got a bigger TV than that and I did not at any stage see day light between Petersons hand and the ball.

If Webb would have thrown a pass that was intercepted woud the try have been dissallowed? No it wouldn't have. If Webb knocked on he may have got advantage, but as he had the ball stripped one on one he gets nothing.

The second point, it should have.

Explain to me the advantage the Warriors get from it? That sort of philosophy demands players then if there's an error from the opponents attacking the line to kick it dead, simply because if he drops it after a difficult pick up in his own 10 he's apparently according to your logics had advantage? Yep, under the sticks I'm sure the Warriors were absolutely thrilled with the advantage they got.

Why should avantage be a disallowed notion as a result of a strip as opposed to a knock on? You can't reward a team for a good play, after an error. The ERROR has come first. Your logics astound me.

As for Peterson's, get a tape, watch closely, you'll even see the one part of the hand holding the ball near the end (the tip of his thumbs), come well apart from the ball. While you're at it, watch Pearson's play of the ball throughout the game, and come back to me with a percentage on how many times his foot gets CLOSE to making contact. I'd estimate 25% at best.

God you're a fool.

It's a little thing called 'ball security'.

In a one-on-one strip, the onus is on the ball carrier not to get it stripped. Once it is stripped, there is no advantage unless it travels forward.

Pot...Kettle... Black?

You never ONCE in your tyrade explained how the Warriors got an advantage. Is running 2 metres off your own try line in wet weather an advantage from the oppositions own error?

Give it up already. Or at least come back with a reply to the question, not a "ball security" issue that was not even part of the debate.

Gees, having trouble reading are we?

It CLEARLY states there is no advantage in a stripped ball.

Webb got the ball stripped by Stapleton one-on-one, the ball travelled backwards; had Webb paid more attention he wouldn't have lost it.

Result? Fair try.

Anyway, quit your whining - you won, didn't you?

 

[1eyedeel]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the Daniel Wagon forward pass when he sent Lee Hopkins over. There was no way in the world that was forward...

 

[Misty Bee]

Maybe Clarkie was so shocked that Wagon PASSED the ball that he blew a penalty. His instinct said that somethig wasn't right!