Dumb Referee
coops
the attacker out, yet threatens to sin bin a player for bad mouthing him or
making a statement that the officials fucked up?
Cummins, what a wanker.
He certainly didn't cause the Dragons to lose, but shit, he should have sent
Ryan off. That would have changed the whole game.
Also I think that there is no BOTD with the SBW tackle and steal. Two in the
tackle, fuck that is a penalty every other game.
Cummins, GF referee? Not on tonights performance.
ECM
"coops" <bothinitials...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:zGFqi.12925$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> How does a referee put a defender on report for a high tackle which knocks
> the attacker out, yet threatens to sin bin a player for bad mouthing him
> or
> making a statement that the officials fucked up?
Was it a high tackle?
Ya back mouth a ref, your only going one place
> Cummins, what a wanker.
>
> He certainly didn't cause the Dragons to lose, but shit, he should have
> sent
> Ryan off. That would have changed the whole game.
On report, enough action taken
> Also I think that there is no BOTD with the SBW tackle and steal. Two in
> the
> tackle, fuck that is a penalty every other game.
Had the ball clearly before the second player was in the tackle
john smith
"coops" <bothinitials...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:zGFqi.12925$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I suppose you are a disgruntled Dragons supporter then, Hicket hit Ryles so
hard in the tackle around the waist that the force of the tackle doubled him
over so hard and fast, anyone making the tackle would have got him. SBW got
the ball off the St George player before the 2nd tackler came into the
picture. And no matter how good Cummins refereed he would not get the GF
anyway. By the way didn't you also see the St George winger knock the ball
on when he tried take a kick and then the ref said no knockon, when everyone
and his dog in the commentary team said it was a blatant stuffup from the
ref. Straight after that St George scored. The Dogs didn't deserve the win
but St George in my opinion beat themselves in the end with the start they
had, it was another choke by them.
Hammer
"john smith" <jsm...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:EcIqi.12967$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Agreed, and 2/6 by the goal kicker is hardly first grade quality. 2 of them
were tough, but he should have at least got 4/6.
coops
"john smith" <jsm...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:EcIqi.12967$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
Actually I am a Broncos supporter who just likes to see a fair game, with no
interference from the officials. There was enough doubt in the Ryan hit to
warrant a player being sent off. FFS what does a layer have to do, to get
sent off these days? To be fair to the Saints, maybe the Dogs should have
lost Ryan until Ryles came back on. If Ryles doesn't come back on, Ryan
doesn't either - and it isn't a replacement situation. Whether Ryles is
doubled over, does not change the fact he got hit in the head. I can't
recall the knock on, so no comment. Sounds pretty clear cut with what you
say though. There is doubt over SBW - how you can say there isn't is beyond
me. Actually if you reckon there is no doubt, why go to the VR in the first
place? There was doubt - hence BOTD coming up. If it occurs in the field of
play, it should be a penalty. BOTD IMHO exists inly in the in-goal area, and
not the field of play. If the Saints had had a better goal kicker, they
would have won. They didn't so they lost. Did I do my money or lose a tip -
nope. Just like a good fair game with no interference from the officials.
coops
"ECM" <w...@ever.com> wrote in message
news:13amftp...@corp.supernews.com...
|
| "coops" <bothinitials...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
| news:zGFqi.12925$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| > How does a referee put a defender on report for a high tackle which
knocks
| > the attacker out, yet threatens to sin bin a player for bad mouthing him
| > or
| > making a statement that the officials fucked up?
|
| Was it a high tackle?
| Ya back mouth a ref, your only going one place
Fair enough, but he sent the wrong message last night. Cummins was saying,
it is okay to smack a guy in the mouth, and have him sit out like 40 minutes
due to concussion, but bad mouth me, then you get sin binned. Somehow I
think the priorites are a bit wrong.
|
| > Cummins, what a wanker.
| >
| > He certainly didn't cause the Dragons to lose, but shit, he should have
| > sent
| > Ryan off. That would have changed the whole game.
|
| On report, enough action taken
Bullshit - bad example shown and a bad decision by a gutless ref. Round one,
SBW got sent off for almost the same shit. Ys it happens every game, but
that doesn't make it right, or any less of an illegal play. Ryan hit Ryles
high, and deserved to get sent off. Fuck, people like Mackinnon and the
other Warriors winger deserve to be knighted in their cases then.
Putting on report is bullshit - it is a losers way of actioning things.
|
| > Also I think that there is no BOTD with the SBW tackle and steal. Two in
| > the
| > tackle, fuck that is a penalty every other game.
|
| Had the ball clearly before the second player was in the tackle
Why then use the words "BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT" when ruling the try? Obviously
there is doubt and not as clear cut as you say.
john smith
>
> "ECM" <w...@ever.com> wrote in message
> news:13amftp...@corp.supernews.com...
> |
> | "coops" <bothinitials...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> | news:zGFqi.12925$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> | > How does a referee put a defender on report for a high tackle which
> knocks
> | > the attacker out, yet threatens to sin bin a player for bad mouthing
> him
> | > or
> | > making a statement that the officials fucked up?
> |
> | Was it a high tackle?
> | Ya back mouth a ref, your only going one place
>
> Fair enough, but he sent the wrong message last night. Cummins was saying,
> it is okay to smack a guy in the mouth, and have him sit out like 40
> minutes
> due to concussion, but bad mouth me, then you get sin binned. Somehow I
> think the priorites are a bit wrong.
>
Ryan didn't go out and hit him high, because Hickey hit Ryles so hard that
it double him over so fast that in a normal tackle it would have got him
chest high, and because he doubled over so quick he didn't have time to
adjust. Should Ryan have asked Hickey how hard he was going to tackle him so
when he doubled over he could get on his knees to tackle him.
> |
> | > Cummins, what a wanker.
> | >
> | > He certainly didn't cause the Dragons to lose, but shit, he should
> have
> | > sent
> | > Ryan off. That would have changed the whole game.
> |
> | On report, enough action taken
>
> Bullshit - bad example shown and a bad decision by a gutless ref. Round
> one,
> SBW got sent off for almost the same shit. Ys it happens every game, but
> that doesn't make it right, or any less of an illegal play. Ryan hit Ryles
> high, and deserved to get sent off. Fuck, people like Mackinnon and the
> other Warriors winger deserve to be knighted in their cases then.
>
> Putting on report is bullshit - it is a losers way of actioning things.
>
> |
> | > Also I think that there is no BOTD with the SBW tackle and steal. Two
> in
> | > the
> | > tackle, fuck that is a penalty every other game.
> |
> | Had the ball clearly before the second player was in the tackle
>
> Why then use the words "BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT" when ruling the try?
> Obviously
> there is doubt and not as clear cut as you say.
>
Because it happened a milisecone before the 2nd tackler touched him, that's
why.
john smith
Like you mean the non interference of the officials with the knockon from
Soward and not called and the knockon from Chase which eventuated in a try
to the Dragons not called, fair crack of the whip mate, see both sides of
the coin, not the one you want to see.
>
>
I presume you didn't watch the game and how fast that tackle happened,
watching it on slow mo is different as it happened live and Ryan wasn't even
looking at Ryles when it happened.
coops
| Soward and not called and the knockon from Chase which eventuated in a try
| to the Dragons not called, fair crack of the whip mate, see both sides of
| the coin, not the one you want to see.
As I said, I missed one tackle or play.
|
| >
| >
|
| I presume you didn't watch the game and how fast that tackle happened,
| watching it on slow mo is different as it happened live and Ryan wasn't
even
| looking at Ryles when it happened.
|
Actually I did watch the game. Every commentator says there is doubt - even
today.
I am in good company - and more people are seeing what I saw.
Maybe it is YOU who are putting your own spin on things.
coops
He hit him in the face -that is against the rules. Forget all the other
bullshit. The other stuff you crap on about is just that.
john smith
announcers said so.
coops
The Roast? I would rather sit on ant hill covered in honey. The roast is
crap - the sooner RL gets rid of dickhead Johns and his side kick Gould, the
better. A couple of years ago, Gould was told to commentate on league, and
leave the personal stuff at the door. Maye Nine should give him the choice -
the door or the game. Gould is knowledgeable but his antics give people the
shits.
If the try is rules BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT - then simple common sense, says
there was doubt and is not clear cut. What dictionary do you use?
Mango
>
>
> Ryan didn't go out and hit him high, because Hickey hit Ryles so hard that
> it double him over so fast that in a normal tackle it would have got him
> chest high, and because he doubled over so quick he didn't have time to
> adjust. Should Ryan have asked Hickey how hard he was going to tackle him
> so when he doubled over he could get on his knees to tackle him.
>
I agree with you here. Ryles dropped very quickly from the hit and Ryan was
already lined up to hit him around the chest. A send off would have been
very tough. I'm not even sure it warrants a charge.
>
>>
> Because it happened a milisecone before the 2nd tackler touched him,
> that's why.
>
If you can work that out from the camera angles then you should sign up as a
video ref. Benefit of the doubt was given, because it was impossible to
make a certain call from the video replays available. I think it was more
likely the steal was legal than not, but I can't be certain.
>>
>> |
>> | > Cummins, GF referee? Not on tonights performance.
>> | >
Not this year anyway.
>> | >
>> |
>> |
>>
>>
>
>
John Heath
wrote:
> "john smith" <jsm...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:EcIqi.12967$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
IMHO, there's no excuse for making contact with a swinging arm. It's
reckless - because players can and do get hit hard like Ryles was.
They can and do descend suddenly, and a swinging arm risks taking
their heads off in that situation.
If you don't swing the arm, there's no risk of this. If you roll the
dice by swinging the arm, I don't think you deserve any leniency if
things go badly.
John Heath
> "coops" <bothinitials_and_surn...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:QKQqi.13028$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "john smith" <jsm...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> >news:EcIqi.12967$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > |
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would have thought looking at what you were doing was an important
part of tackling.
john smith
"John Heath" <johnsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185753129....@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
into them, come on wake up and smell the coffee mate.
John Heath
> "John Heath" <johnsmith...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Well, I don't know you so I don't know if that's tongue in cheek... if
not we'll have to agree to disagree!
coops
"John Heath" <johnsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185753129....@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
| On Jul 29, 9:58 am, "coops" bothinitials_and_surn...@bigpond.net.au
|
| IMHO, there's no excuse for making contact with a swinging arm. It's
| reckless - because players can and do get hit hard like Ryles was.
| They can and do descend suddenly, and a swinging arm risks taking
| their heads off in that situation.
|
| If you don't swing the arm, there's no risk of this. If you roll the
| dice by swinging the arm, I don't think you deserve any leniency if
| things go badly.
|
I agree Mr Heath, there is absolutely no excuse. What shits me is
commentators that keep going on with this "that was weak" - if you hit the
head, it is a penalty. Same as the arm bouncing off the football - too bad -
it is high (and most cases it doesn't bounce up - it hits the chin anyway).
john smith
A grade 2, a very serious head high eh, 1 week. He needs a rest anyway.
coops
Well if you were in charge he would have been knighted. Being suspended
means IT WAS HIGH. Get over it. By the way, I don't think I ever said it was
VERY SERIOUS.