Panthers v Dogs spoiler

[Kimlo]

^^ I have to agree there, battle of the grubs/sooks !

 

[Hamm.0]

Obviously broncospwn is biased towards the leb so even if Ennis carves it up he will still believe Farah deserves to play Origin.

I love racial undertones in posts. It shows the maturity of the forum as a whole when this type of crap is allowed.

 

[Bucking Beads]

ME 2

 

[Coxy]

how on earth do you say Folau and Thaiday dived? They looked genuinely hurt, didn't get up and wink either....

In any case, the ref screwed the Panthers over.

Maybe Sammy was hurt, but Izzy didn't even get hit in the head.

No, he got knees in the kidneys. I'd be in a heap of pain too.

It was a cheap shot, Quinn is a waste of oxygen.

 

[lynx000]

Wow, Jeb did you see Waterhouse nearly go into the crowd?

Pfffft, if it was at ANZ Stadium where the crowd is so far away, it wouldn't be an issue. Did you not like Kerry Bousted's classic lifting tackle in the first ever Origin game? He had already taken the NSW wanker over the sideline and still lifted him and put him on his back.

Also, what is part of the game? Hiiting people who aren't ready for impact or diving or both?

Getting under the skin of opposition players. It's all part of the game. We've had Broncos players doing it since we came into the competition in 1988 and it had been going on long before that as well. Ennis does go over the top sometimes but it does no harm to the game whatsoever.

As for diving, yeh it's ordinary I agree. But Folau and Thaiday did it on Friday night as well. So you need to hate them as well.

Yes, getting under the skin of the opposition is part of the game and Ennis is a past and current master of this. But in this case I think the timing of it was the issue. That is, game over, result settled, that is what got up Petero's nose from the interviews I saw. Is it necessary to get under the skin of the opposition and place the safety of another player at risk when the game is basically over?

 

[Kaz]

Bulldogs issued with a breach notice over the 14 players.

They have 5 days to respond.

Just on Pre game show on pay tv.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 22,00.html

The Bulldogs have been stripped of two competition points for fielding a 14th man in Saturday night's narrow win over Penrith at CUA Stradium.

Bulldogs five-eighth Ben Roberts and his captain Andrew Ryan were the two players who were interchanged.

Roberts actually scored the match-winning try in the 78th minute of the the Dogs' 28-26 victory

 

[Flutterby]

The breach isn't in regards to the Ben Roberts interchange but rather when Ennis was down receiving treatment, a trainer called Ryan back onto the field and he entered via the far touchline without reporting in to the interchange officials as required and Ennis was still on the ground and Ryan took his position in the attacking line during Ben Robert's try-scoring play.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 14,00.html

 

[Bucking Beads]

Do the panthers get the win or do they both recieve zero points.

 

[Flutterby]

They will both receive zero. Dogs stay on 4 point until appeal is heard (if they lodge one); not sure how tipping comps are affected - I guess it depends on who's running the comp.

 

[schmix]

Maybe not directly Rock, but when a player goes down injured in any other team they play by the rules and are stuck with 12 men until he either gets up or is replaced. You can't let the Bulldogs just decide that that rule doesn't apply to them.

Also, there was a big crackdown on this a few years back after the Broncos incident. The Bulldogs deserve to lose the points for sheer stupidity.

 

[Hamm.0]

I see both points really.

Where do you draw the line, a breach has occurred. However, if e1nnis was physically down the whole set, he would have had no impact in the attacking line. If Ennis got to his feet, there is argument that a player may have had to mark him, hence giving the Dogs an overlap.

 

[schmix]

I think they only call time off when a player is in the way of the play, or if it looks extremely serious, but I might be wrong there.

The way I see it, it's a situation that's incredibly easy to avoid and one where everyone knows the rules. The penalty may be harsh, but the dogs could never claim ignorance.

 

[Nashy]

Agree with the lady. The Broncos incident outlined just how important it is, and how harsh the NRL will come down on it.

The two points need to be taken, if any teams didn't learn from the Broncos, then that's their fault.

In saying that, I wonder if the Broncos incident will come into play with an appeal. It could come in both arguments. "You should have known from this, so you will lose the points" or "We let the Broncos off, we'll let the Dogs off".

 

[Russo]

Dogs = Broncos nearly now so should have known better.

 

[Coxy]

Agree with the lady. The Broncos incident outlined just how important it is, and how harsh the NRL will come down on it.

The two points need to be taken, if any teams didn't learn from the Broncos, then that's their fault.

In saying that, I wonder if the Broncos incident will come into play with an appeal. It could come in both arguments. "You should have known from this, so you will lose the points" or "We let the Broncos off, we'll let the Dogs off".

It will definitely come into play. Particularly the part of the appeal judgement that said: "The NRL erred in stating in the original case that the reason for 2 points being deducted was due to the impact of the breach." or words to that effect.

Basically the appeals judge said there is NO excuse for 14 players EVER, but because the NRL misled the Broncos into thinking there was, they had to give the points back and give them a whopping great fine instead. But they were very adamant, all future breaches should result in a 2 point deduction.

And therein lies the issue IMO. If the Dogs had lost, the NRL would've just issued them a fine.

It should be all or nothing. Either you lose 2 points REGARDLESS of the result, or you get a fine. I think it has to be black and white. There's no excuse for it. At all.

What the penalty should be? Dunno. But I'd be pissed if I was a bulldogs fan, same way I was pissed when the Broncos had their points taken in 04.

 

[Kimlo]

IMO, the dogs shouldn't be docked the two points. I think they definitely have a legal case to argue considering why the cowboys and broncos weren't docked of 2 poitns but fines instead and the fact that ennis was taking out illegally just as webcke was back then (which was the main excuse for just the fine) so the dogs should defientley have a case here and IMO docking two points would be very harsh, however I get a strange feeling greenberg won't even try to appeal.

 

[Coxy]

Rules are clear. The Broncos appeal set down the new precedent by saying ALL future breaches should be 2 point penalties.

Can't recall the more recent Cowboys incident, though I do know they were the last team to lose 2 points for 14 on the field (from memory they tried to pack 7 in the scrum, LOLZ).

 

[Hamm.0]

Maybe the NRL need an interchange box system similar to GayFL. This could hold the officials more accountable for their actions.

The Dogs lose valuable points, so what does the official get penalised? Doesn't seem fair, the official should be held accountable as well.