Kangaroos vs. Kiwis

[OXY-351]

He would have to wear gaffa tape on his mouth. He is always complaining to the ref. (Seems like Tovey has taught him well.)

I think he was warranted a lot of the time. I swear the refs are making up stuff this seasin. A major foul over rules a minor foul? WTF?

Besides any good captain should question the ref, if only to give their side a breather.

 

[Alec]

The 2nd half was a completley different story from the 1st half hence game of 2 halves bozo

It's my way of saying one half was completley different from the other

Agreed, one was the first half, the other was the second half.

 

[Big Pete]

I don't know Edo. I'm one of Billy's harshest critics and while I don't think he's THE best fullback to play for Australia or Queensland, he's definitely been good over the years.

Tonight was a pretty ordinary game from him, but not really one worth bagging. Sort of like JT and Cronk really.

 

[Big Pete]

I think he was warranted a lot of the time. I swear the refs are making up stuff this seasin. A major foul over rules a minor foul? WTF?

Besides any good captain should question the ref, if only to give their side a breather.

While the terminology was foreign, that's how the referee's have always ruled.

 

[Son Edo]

Definitely makes derp mistakes at the wrong times.

 

[OXY-351]

While the terminology was foreign, that's how the referee's have always ruled.

Well it needs to change. How you can knock the ball on, yet then get it back cause the opposition stops you from regaining it is beyound me.

Sure it shouldn't have been a try, but no way should have aus got the ball back from a penalty.

Even Nashy's mechanics would know this.

 

[Big Pete]

I don't believe an advantage should extend to blatantly breaking the rules.

 

[Anonymous person]

to be honest i think it should have been a try - hodges was technically in possession of the ball until it hits the ground, so nightingale had every right to tackle him. hodges couldve regathered before it hit the ground and its play on. same way that if the ball hits your hand and goes up over a defender theyre allowed to tackle you without the ball as youre deemed in possession until it hits an opposition player or the ground. you cant get penalised for completing a tackle in which the attacker knocks on.

absolutely stupid decision.

 

[Big Pete]

Dex what does it say in the rule book?

Personally, I don't think Nightingale should be allowed to interfere with Hodges when he clearly has no control over the ball.

 

[Kaz]

you cant get penalised for completing a tackle in which the attacker knocks on.

I didn't think it was for the tackle, I thought it was for the obstruction.

 

[Anonymous person]

I didn't think it was for the tackle, I thought it was for the obstruction.

the tackle was the obstruction....

 

[Porthoz]

Was it just me, or was the Gallen pass to Slater that lead to the Boyd try, miles forward?

 

[Kaz]

I think it was the camera angle. It looked fine to me.

 

[Alec]

I was really enjoyed this game, until Australia started scoring at will. I was hoping for a close finish. Hopefully guys like SBW are available for the World Cup, I want at least one team to give Australia a decent challenge.

 

[broncos4life]

Was it just me, or was the Gallen pass to Slater that lead to the Boyd try, miles forward?

It wasn't just you

 

[Coxy]

to be honest i think it should have been a try - hodges was technically in possession of the ball until it hits the ground, so nightingale had every right to tackle him. hodges couldve regathered before it hit the ground and its play on. same way that if the ball hits your hand and goes up over a defender theyre allowed to tackle you without the ball as youre deemed in possession until it hits an opposition player or the ground. you cant get penalised for completing a tackle in which the attacker knocks on.

absolutely stupid decision.

firstly, nightingale didn't make contact until after Hodges had lost the ball. only just, but he did.

secondly, lmfao. he's in possession until the ball hits the ground? wtf rulebook are you reading?

 

[Browny]

It's a grey area Coxy ;)

 

[Anonymous person]

firstly, nightingale didn't make contact until after Hodges had lost the ball. only just, but he did.

secondly, lmfao. he's in possession until the ball hits the ground? wtf rulebook are you reading?

of course he only tackled him after he touched the ball, if he tackled him before it would deservedly be a penalty.

hodges INTENTIONALLY played at the ball so nightingale has every right to tackle him. if the ball just hit hodges and he didnt play at it and nightingale tackled him, penalty every day of the week. the fact that hodges played at it changes everything, as hes the person deemed in possession. remember, only the ball carrier, ie. the person in possession, can knock on, and hodges knocked on. if youre the ball carrier, you can be tackled.

if nightingale tackled him after the ball had hit the ground, it should be a knock-on and turnover, shouldnt go to a major infraction over a minor infraction - whats a major infraction? is there a list in the laws of the game? if there is it must have been added in the last few weeks cause i havent seen it there. ive only ever seen this once before i think it was, where an offside kick-chaser was taken out when he went for the catch, and apparently taking them out overrules the fact that he shouldnt have been there in the first place. its a stupid rule.

but nightingale tackled him after he had intentionally played at it but before it had hit the ground, which is a legitimate tackle. if someone is juggling the ball a defender can rightly come up and tackle them even when the ball is in the air, because they are "in possession" of the ball. not a hard concept to understand, and has been that way for as long as i can remember. remember, its not a knock-on until the ball comes in contact with an opposition player, the ground, or a goal post. its still in the players possession as they can get a boot to it before it hits the ground and its play on.