JT No Try

[Porthoz]

So JT has admitted he knocked on & he also admitted that is was a Feldt knock on.

“I asked if it was for a Feldt knock-on or mine and they couldn’t answer.’’

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...s/news-story/2d0f50431ad42fe5c813e184185306f4

On the Gillett try:

“They ruled both hands came off the ball and that possession was lost,” Archer said.

WTF, how did they come to that conclusion???

 

[1910]

You mean our captain spoke to the ref? is that not allowed in the ISC or someaning? You're not a Broncos fan are you?

Also i love the fact that after ten minutes of whinging about the decisions, Paul Green then said we shouldn't be talking about the decisions because it takes away from the contest.

Is that really your counter to my- both coaches and captains whinged on Friday so who cares point?


Sorry but that's embarrassing that you think to be a fan of a club you can't be balanced and noticed Parker and Bennett did the same thing.

 

[Porthoz]

Is that really your counter to my- both coaches and captains whinged on Friday so who cares point?


Sorry but that's embarrassing that you think to be a fan of a club you can't be balanced and noticed Parker and Bennett did the same thing.

In my opinion, and I recognise my bias, there is no comparison between what coaches or captains did.

I was at the game, and Parker got into the ref after the Cowboys had made repeated penalties in their 20 (and the Gillett try was stupidly denied) without the ref ever calling the Cowboys captain to responsibility. I thought it was justified at the time to be honest, and also... the whinge level of the coaches was nowhere near the same.

 

[Cult]

Is that really your counter to my- both coaches and captains whinged on Friday so who cares point?


Sorry but that's embarrassing that you think to be a fan of a club you can't be balanced and noticed Parker and Bennett did the same thing.

Yes that is my counter to your point. The two situations were completely different. Green whinged for a solid ten minutes and then tried to make himself look good by saying they shouldn't talk about the decisions because they take away from the game, but he was the one talking about them. Green and Thurston are notorious whingers and again, the situations were completely different. Remember this the next time Bennett is chastised for months, simply for responding to a question about golden point where the media already knew his stance and then we can talk about how they're the same. Green is almost as bad as Toovey and gets away with it because the Cowboys are everyones second favourite team.

And no, that isn't the only reason I question your allegiance to the club. If you go back through your comments on here it comes across as though you have a slight issue with the Broncos/Bennett/anything that isn't Ipswich/ISC related and I was merely questioning if you were in fact a fan of the club.

 

[Taylor1921]

I don't get why people are whinging, 50/50 calls were made all night long. We got robbed the Gillett try? So what the **** is everyone going on about. It happens every game. If you lose its because you lost. Just like the Grand Final we didn't lose the Grand Final because of one moment in Ben Hunt we lost it well before that.

 

[broncos4life]

I don't get why people are whinging, 50/50 calls were made all night long. We got robbed the Gillett try? So what the **** is everyone going on about. It happens every game. If you lose its because you lost. Just like the Grand Final we didn't lose the Grand Final because of one moment in Ben Hunt we lost it well before that.

That all makes complete sense, but for whatever reason the Cowboys are everyone's second team (apparently) and we are the devil.

 

[FGfrom50]

After doing a bit of research, looking through the 2013 rulebook:

"Where the ball which is stationary in the field of play or thein-goal area comes in contact with a player in touch, touchin-goal or over the dead ball line, the ball is deemed to havebeen made dead by that player.

Should a kick be made dead by a defending playerstraddling the dead ball line or touch in-goal line, play will restartwith a goal line drop-out."

The wording is still far too vague but the blue passage clearly indicates the Peachey rule has been overturned. Other than for kickoffs there are no more in goal area hacks.

For general 'in-touch' though (the green passage) the phrasing is way more confusing but, devoid of other context, I would assume that being "made dead by that player" indicates that the scrumfeed goes against said player. I'm assuming the use of the word 'stationary' is simply a reference to the previous rule since overturned as there are no differentiating passages for a ball in motion.

That's interesting to read. Certainly I'd agree with your reading there. So the ball would have been out by Eden, scrum Cows, if there wasn't the knock on from JT.

 

[LittleDavey]

Initially, I thought the Feldt knock-on was OK as it came off his legs. Didn't notice Eden was out but Thurston obviously knocked it on so no try. On review, I was concerned about Eden and thought maybe it should be a Cows scrum. On further review, the Feldt drop is a knock on in any situation any day of the week - so the call was correct IMO.

(To touch on the others - the obstruction call was BS, it was a fair Cows try, but cancelled out the Gillett no-try, which was also a fair try - so the overall result was correct).

 

[Foordy]

Initially, I thought the Feldt knock-on was OK as it came off his legs. Didn't notice Eden was out but Thurston obviously knocked it on so no try. On review, I was concerned about Eden and thought maybe it should be a Cows scrum. On further review, the Feldt drop is a knock on in any situation any day of the week - so the call was correct IMO.

(To touch on the others - the obstruction call was BS, it was a fair Cows try, but cancelled out the Gillett no-try, which was also a fair try - so the overall result was correct).

on the obstruction call ... that type of contact has consistently been called a obstruction for years, could Glenn have stopped Morgan? probably not ... but lets not change the one thing the refs are actually consistent on

 

[LittleDavey]

on the obstruction call ... that type of contact has consistently been called a obstruction for years, could Glenn have stopped Morgan? probably not ... but lets not change the one thing the refs are actually consistent on

This is true, I should have clarified that I dislike the way the rule is applied. Funny it's the only thing they get consistently right! IMO Glenn's presence or lack of would not in any way have influenced the outcome, therefore it's a try in my book. But yeah you're right, given the previous calls over previous years, it should have been denied and rightfully was.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Yeah, I like the black and white ruling as long as they're consistent. If you want to send block runners through, you better make sure they get it right.

 

[Morkel]

I can't remember who said it, but the fact that Glenn would (likely) not have been able to reach Morgan is irrelevant. By being taken out, it changed the landscape of what was going on. Milford was isolated and attempted to tackle him in such a way as to wrap up the ball and try to put him on his back (ie, he went high). Had Glenn been within the vicinity, Milford may have opted for a technique that was not as desperate, instead tackling in such a way as to simply slow Morgan down, like go low and let Glenn come through to wrap the ball up. Similarly, Morgan may have felt the need to get further outside Milford in order to escape the inside defence of Glenn, therefore going closer to the outside defender and therefore Milford having help from the outside.

 

[Foordy]

I can't remember who said it, but the fact that Glenn would (likely) not have been able to reach Morgan is irrelevant. By being taken out, it changed the landscape of what was going on. Milford was isolated and attempted to tackle him in such a way as to wrap up the ball and try to put him on his back (ie, he went high). Had Glenn been within the vicinity, Milford may have opted for a technique that was not as desperate, instead tackling in such a way as to simply slow Morgan down, like go low and let Glenn come through to wrap the ball up. Similarly, Morgan may have felt the need to get further outside Milford in order to escape the inside defence of Glenn, therefore going closer to the outside defender and therefore Milford having help from the outside.

Freddie Fittler said something along those lines on tge Sunday footy show... While Joey Johns kept going on about how the Cowboys were robbed

 

[subsbligh]

I can't remember who said it, but the fact that Glenn would (likely) not have been able to reach Morgan is irrelevant. By being taken out, it changed the landscape of what was going on. Milford was isolated and attempted to tackle him in such a way as to wrap up the ball and try to put him on his back (ie, he went high). Had Glenn been within the vicinity, Milford may have opted for a technique that was not as desperate, instead tackling in such a way as to simply slow Morgan down, like go low and let Glenn come through to wrap the ball up. Similarly, Morgan may have felt the need to get further outside Milford in order to escape the inside defence of Glenn, therefore going closer to the outside defender and therefore Milford having help from the outside.

It is a very complicated thing to run a proper decoy, and this is the exact risk you take.

Cowboys got the timing wrong.

It's only Round 4 though. They've got the 2015 GF trophy in the cabinet and we've got hopes and dreams for 2016.

... and 21 years of dominance and 6 premierships.

 

[john1420]

The Feldt knock-on call was spot on

That's a knock-on every day of the week

I can see an argument as to why it should not be called a knock-on (back off the hand, etc.) but the fact remains those things are called knock-ons consistently over the past few years, and so this one should be too

 

[Dexter]

I can't remember who said it, but the fact that Glenn would (likely) not have been able to reach Morgan is irrelevant. By being taken out, it changed the landscape of what was going on. Milford was isolated and attempted to tackle him in such a way as to wrap up the ball and try to put him on his back (ie, he went high). Had Glenn been within the vicinity, Milford may have opted for a technique that was not as desperate, instead tackling in such a way as to simply slow Morgan down, like go low and let Glenn come through to wrap the ball up. Similarly, Morgan may have felt the need to get further outside Milford in order to escape the inside defence of Glenn, therefore going closer to the outside defender and therefore Milford having help from the outside.

Completely agree P, and if they bring back what Green was saying and treat each on a case by case basis it once again turns into a shit fight. If for instance Roberts was in Glens position do they take into account the players speed to cover the ground etc etc. It may not be perfect but the way it's being done now has to be better.
FMD the coaches are continually bleating about consistency but in this case some want to go back to an interpretation that lends itself to inconsistency.

 

[Dash]

Completely agree P, and if they bring back what Green was saying and treat each on a case by case basis it once again turns into a shit fight. If for instance Roberts was in Glens position do they take into account the players speed to cover the ground etc etc. It may not be perfect but the way it's being done now has to be better.
FMD the coaches are continually bleating about consistency but in this case some want to go back to an interpretation that lends itself to inconsistency.

Everyone loves consistency when it works on their favour.

 

[M.B.88]

Broncos were robbed of several great attacking opportunities due to professional fouls. Simple as that. They were unlucky on 50 50 calls you could argue, but we were directly and intentionally cheated by our opposition with referees failing to penalise appropriately.
Fact