- Jan 25, 2013
- 25,705
- 30,048
No but if they know a player has tried to make a situation look worse by deliberately playing for it, then they have every reason to be skeptical if they try it again in the future.
Round 23 Discussion
- Thread starter Big Pete
- Start date
No but if they know a player has tried to make a situation look worse by deliberately playing for it, then they have every reason to be skeptical if they try it again in the future.
- Mar 26, 2008
- 7,994
- 6,941
**** Manly, BUt... it should have been a penalty. The Tigers player wasn't going at the inside shoulder, more straight into DCE.
I'm not sure why they didn't show the head on (FOX) until after the try was awarded. I assume the bunker saw it though.
DCE maybe could have slid off earlier but he had to make a decision which affected the decision of the players outside him to come in. Bottom line for me is technically it was obstruction.
Anway, **** Manly.
I'm not sure why they didn't show the head on (FOX) until after the try was awarded. I assume the bunker saw it though.
DCE maybe could have slid off earlier but he had to make a decision which affected the decision of the players outside him to come in. Bottom line for me is technically it was obstruction.
Anway, **** Manly.
tommy
International Rep
- Jun 5, 2015
- 13,166
- 13,948
Also my opinion, he tried to play it as best he could without taking a big soccer dive because he has already done that one this season against us.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,225
- 26,005
- Thread starter
- #347
I'd have to see the other angle Dex is referring to, but based on the live footage it looks like a carbon copy of the Round 10 clash where Cherry-Evans misread the play and was rewarded. It looked like Chee Kam planned to run on the outside shoulder of Cherry-Evans who then stepped into him and was taken front on.
At the very least, it isn't inconsistent. The other week, the Panthers exploited gaps that were exposed by defenders staying in the line obstructing the inside shoulder of the defender.
In other words, give him the chicken.
When you start including priors and other indicators that's when the rules get messy and the referees develop tunnel vision.
- Mar 26, 2008
- 7,994
- 6,941
The only thing that should matter is where the tigers player was running. That is what defensive decisions are based on and why it should have been a penalty. As soon as DCE made his decision the other players followed him in. The Tigers player stopped on his run because he was going to run into DCE .
I always try and base my opinion on, if that happened to my team, and I would feel ripped.
I always try and base my opinion on, if that happened to my team, and I would feel ripped.
- Mar 26, 2008
- 7,994
- 6,941
And they did. They didn't put the Tigpies away and those 50 50 calls tend to go against you when a team is running you down.
- Jan 25, 2014
- 44,492
- 33,772
It was a situation that could have gone either way and it has gone the way of the defending team in the past.
I'm glad common sense prevailed. DCE misread it and made the decision to come in on Chee Kam and then tried to play for the penalty once he released he fucked up.
I'm glad common sense prevailed. DCE misread it and made the decision to come in on Chee Kam and then tried to play for the penalty once he released he fucked up.
My thinking was that the tigers player never actually made it into the Manly defensive line, rather DCE jumped half a metre into the player to initiate the contact. Surely it can't be an obstruction if you don't actually get to the line?
- Sep 6, 2013
- 56,802
- 69,380
Exactly!
