Round 7 Match Thread

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

You idiot.

CLaw didn't have the ball yet and that hasn't been a penalty try for as long as the game has been played.

Easy decision and correct call.

Anyone with eyes could see he was going to score it.
Regardless of whether he had the ball of not, he was illegally denied the chance to get it - and that close to the line - should be a penalty try every day of the week.

The literal reason he held lawrence back was because he was going to get to the ball first. Thats more than enough reason to give a penalty try and a sin bin.

And might I add that it is a little pathetic that the only gripe NSWelshman can come up with regarding Smith is that due to talking to the ref's politely, they don't tell him to piss off straight away.....

When you compare it to the drug taking, cheating grubbery that QLDers accurately point out with Gallen, it's almost embarrassing that it is even raised as a gripe.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:And might I add that it is a little pathetic that the only gripe NSWelshman can come up with regarding Smith is that due to talking to the ref's politely, they don't tell him to piss off straight away.....

When you compare it to the drug taking, cheating grubbery that QLDers accurately point out with Gallen, it's almost embarrassing that it is even raised as a gripe.

What has this got to do with origin exactly?

Pieman wrote:

Anyone with eyes could see he was going to score it.
Regardless of whether he had the ball of not, he was illegally denied the chance to get it - and that close to the line - should be a penalty try every day of the week.

The literal reason he held lawrence back was because he was going to get to the ball first. Thats more than enough reason to give a penalty try and a sin bin.

Well done, you've just successfully described a textbook professional foul....

Krump wrote:
What has this got to do with origin exactly?

I can only assume State allegiance is the only reason people get the shits with Smith talking politely to the referees??

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Well done, you've just successfully described a textbook professional foul....

Yep, one that directly stopped a try. Which is the reason they give penalty tries.

If its in the general field of play, its just a sin bin. If it is directly stopping a try, its a penalty try and should be a sin bin too.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

I can only assume State allegiance is the only reason people get the shits with Smith talking politely to the referees??

I quite like the way he speaks to them what irks is it shouldn't make an ounce of difference to the game but it clearly does. It's not his fault but he definitely receives an unfair advantage from referees.

Pieman wrote:

Yep, one that directly stopped a try. Which is the reason they give penalty tries.

If its in the general field of play, its just a sin bin. If it is directly stopping a try, its a penalty try and should be a sin bin too.

You have to be able to guarantee he was going to score though. The issue is with the rule not the ruling.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

I can only assume State allegiance is the only reason people get the shits with Smith talking politely to the referees??

You honestly think that because he doesnt yell at them - thats why the refs bend to him?
He is barely even polite to them, he is just not as bad as the others. I do like that he doesnt abuse them like many others captains - but if you think thats the reason, youre a fucking idiot.
The fact that he doesnt swear at them shouldnt influence the way they bend to him.
Jarod Croker is nice as fuck to refs, yet the raiders get the worst rub out of anyone.

Also, you do remember that Smith was one of the central players in the biggest salary cap scandal the game has ever seen dont you?

Krump wrote:
You have to be able to guarantee he was going to score though. The issue is with the rule not the ruling.

All he has to do is land on it. He was going to score.
Even the fact he was denied the opportunity so close to the ball/over the try line, should be enough to give it a penalty try. They should assume he was going to score it, not that he was not going to score it like they did.

Smith wasn't aware of the cap scandal. It's not his go.

Krump wrote:Smith wasn't aware of the cap scandal. It's not his go.

Ah yeah thats right.

Pieman wrote:

All he has to do is land on it. He was going to score.
Even the fact he was denied the opportunity so close to the ball/over the try line, should be enough to give it a penalty try. They should assume he was going to score it, not that he was not going to score it like they did.

I agree but the rules are clear. We were on the receiving end of worse decisions than that.

Pieman wrote:

Yep, one that directly stopped a try. Which is the reason they give penalty tries.

If its in the general field of play, its just a sin bin. If it is directly stopping a try, its a penalty try and should be a sin bin too.

I've seen 100 of these over the years that haven't been awarded penalty tries simply because nobody knows if CLaw was going to drop the ball or gather.

Don't get me wrong, I have both Farah and CLaw in various fantasy teams and was filthy to be honest that it cost them a shitload of points.....but it was deadset clear cut correct call mate.

Krump wrote:
I quite like the way he speaks to them what irks is it shouldn't make an ounce of difference to the game but it clearly does. It's not his fault but he definitely receives an unfair advantage from referees.

I hate Melbourne and have never ever thought he has any influence on a game.....hence why I assume it is State allegiance making it appear that way to you blokes.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

You idiot.

CLaw didn't have the ball yet and that hasn't been a penalty try for as long as the game has been played.

Easy decision and correct call.

Here is an example of something pretty similar being given a penalty try back in 2010

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yni_poI2NHw&feature=youtu.be&t=9m10s

At some point between then and now, the penalty try has been all but wiped from the rule book, but it was not that long ago that CLaw would have been given that try

The thing that annoys me most, is that guy in the bunker said he didn't want to give a penalty try because of "the high bounce of the ball" or something similar.
The bounce of the ball was pretty much perfect for Lawrence, it sat up so well for him.

Turn it up. Im so over a players 'state' being raised for no apparent reason for anything.... i love league fullstop.

As Krumpy said, the problem is with the rule, not the ruling.

Krump wrote:
You have to be able to guarantee he was going to score though. The issue is with the rule not the ruling.

The thing about penalty tries, is that phrases like '100%' and 'guarantee' are a complete fabrication by the fanbase*

The actual rule, copied from the rule book here
http://www.playnrl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ARL-Rules-book-2016.pdf

the Referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team

All it takes his for the referee to think a try would have been scored.  

So in that sense the decision to award (or not award) a penalty try can never be incorrect, because who is to dictate what the referee's opinion is
But you just know at some point in the next couple weeks, as a "square up" for recent decisions, someone will get sent off for tripping, and someone will get a dodgy penalty try,


* As a side note, one of the biggest causes of people's negative opinion of referees, is that they judge their decisions against what they think the rules are, or what they want the rules to be. Not on what the rules actually are. Phil Gould is a massive offender here, and I am so so so so so so so so so happy that I can watch Fox now and never have to listen to him again.

Revraiser wrote:Turn it up. Im so over a players 'state' being raised for no apparent reason for anything.... i love league fullstop.

Cool. So I'm assuming you agree that any claims about Smith influencing the referees, is utter rubbish??