Roosters vs Tigers *end game Spoilers*

[Coxy]

No charge for Dwyer. Guess the match review committee is smoking those "grass clippings", Coxy?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 66,00.html

Why? It deserved a penalty. Didn't say it deserved a charge.

 

[Fozz]

No charge for Dwyer. Guess the match review committee is smoking those "grass clippings", Coxy?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 66,00.html

Why? It deserved a penalty. Didn't say it deserved a charge.

I'm only reading the section of the rules that AP posted but since you can be charged with careless, negligent or reckless tackles then clearly the match review committe thought that Dwyer's tackle was none of these and so did the ref. I wouldn't think there is a basis for a penalty either if they don't think it's careless at the very least.

 

[Coxy]

No charge for Dwyer. Guess the match review committee is smoking those "grass clippings", Coxy?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 66,00.html

Why? It deserved a penalty. Didn't say it deserved a charge.

I'm only reading the section of the rules that AP posted but since you can be charged with careless, negligent or reckless tackles then clearly the match review committe thought that Dwyer's tackle was none of these and so did the ref. I wouldn't think there is a basis for a penalty either if they don't think it's careless at the very least.

There's lots of high tackles that get penalised, not put on report, and not charged.

Different criteria maybe, but the rules aren't completely linked.

 

[Fozz]

There's lots of high tackles that get penalised, not put on report, and not charged.

Different criteria maybe, but the rules aren't completely linked.

Quite true but I always thought that was because the penalty was sufficient punishment. A low grade careless high tackle usually means no suspension with a guilty plea anyway.

 

[Je$ter]

Can I just ask - for those you who wanted that to be a penalty.. do you guys really - and I mean REALLY want to see a game decided like that?

Don't worry about it if it should be technically a penalty or whatever - you guys really want to see a game decided like that?

If that is not a CLEAR example of where we want refs to use discretion then I don't know what is.

Sorry if I sound like a dinosaur or whatever but if THAT hit is a penalty then seriously... come on. Seriously.

I don't want it to finish like that but I want consistency. Consistency going by calls in 2010 means that that tackle should be a penalty.

 

[Coxy]

Can I just ask - for those you who wanted that to be a penalty.. do you guys really - and I mean REALLY want to see a game decided like that?

Don't worry about it if it should be technically a penalty or whatever - you guys really want to see a game decided like that?

If that is not a CLEAR example of where we want refs to use discretion then I don't know what is.

Sorry if I sound like a dinosaur or whatever but if THAT hit is a penalty then seriously... come on. Seriously.

I don't want it to finish like that but I want consistency. Consistency going by calls in 2010 means that that tackle should be a penalty.

Just like consistency in the rules in 2010 would've seen that scrum repacked.

In the space of 30 seconds we saw two rulings completely thrown out in favour of "letting the players decide the outcome". And then in extra time was there a single penalty? I can't recall one.

Really worries me.

 

[Je$ter]

Can I just ask - for those you who wanted that to be a penalty.. do you guys really - and I mean REALLY want to see a game decided like that?

Don't worry about it if it should be technically a penalty or whatever - you guys really want to see a game decided like that?

If that is not a CLEAR example of where we want refs to use discretion then I don't know what is.

Sorry if I sound like a dinosaur or whatever but if THAT hit is a penalty then seriously... come on. Seriously.

I don't want it to finish like that but I want consistency. Consistency going by calls in 2010 means that that tackle should be a penalty.

Just like consistency in the rules in 2010 would've seen that scrum repacked.

In the space of 30 seconds we saw two rulings completely thrown out in favour of "letting the players decide the outcome". And then in extra time was there a single penalty? I can't recall one.

Really worries me.

Kind of like when the Tits beat Dragosn in extra time the refs could have blown the penalty 3 or 4 times but didn't have the guts to do it.

 

[Anonymous person]

refs wont make a decision in extra time, as they know they will be absolutely raped by the media/fans if they give a penalty goal to a team to gift them a win in extra time.

 

[Coxy]

Let's get real though.

If a penalty had of been awarded to JWH, there would be a BIGGER blow up because everyone would be going on about how great the hit was. If they had given the Tigers a penalty for that scrum, there would be a BIGGER blow up because people would be saying "Oh I've seen 50+ worse scrums this year that didn't get penalised".

Refs can't win either way.

But they immediately followed it up with letting one of the ugliest scrums in history play on!

So one way or another, the inconsistent interpretation of the rules cost a team the game.

 

[Coxy]

That's bullshit.

The Tigers and Chooks made 29 MISTAKES between them which could have cost either team the game. They also had TEN field goal attempts between them, only 2 out of the 10 were succesfully. These poor attempts could have cost either team the game.

The ref makes one mistake and apparantly it's the ref's fault that cost either team the game. LOLZ.

Well if he was strictly correct in his ruling, Carney should've slotted a penalty from close to in front after the siren to win the game. That's how it should've finished.

Instead we got a 20 minute cripple fight of shit field goal attempts, and nobody once being square at marker or offside.

It seems if there's < 6 points in a game and < 5 minutes to go, the referee puts his whistle away.

 

[Alec]

If the Ellis try had been given (which it should have been IMO), none of this would have mattered anyway. [icon_razz1

 

[Coxy]

If the Ellis try had been given (which it should have been IMO), none of this would have mattered anyway. [icon_razz1

Why should the Ellis try have been given? Every other time this season when a punch has been thrown, regardless of what happened after, the referees have brought it back to penalise.

If there was no punch thrown, there's no penalty.

 

[Coxy]

Exactly. If Ellis didn't score, do you think it would have been play on? Nope, it would have went back for a penalty. So why should it be any different just because he scored a try?

^ This. Sure, in the old days they would've just awarded the try and got on with it, given the players a talking to and said get on with it.

But in the old days you could spear tackle a bloke or break their jaw in back play and nothing would be done.

I for one am glad the game isn't like that anymore.