-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
WTF
- Thread starter Philster
- Start date
Its a shocker but no worse than the rule re the 50 metre penalty for taking a player to the ground in the tackle. The on against Jacko was a shocker. He took the player to the ground in the tackle as he disposed of the ball not after. It resulted in an easy goal and just breaks your balls when you try and tackle hard but fair yet cop a 50 metre penalty.
Stop changing the rules to cover *smile* poor interpretation by umpires and we will be half way there.
Stop changing the rules to cover *smile* poor interpretation by umpires and we will be half way there.
Is that really in the spirit of the game??? Paying a free kick for time wasting when it wasted no time, it was only a metre over the line and there is a bucket of balls sitting behind the goals. Our boys put in such a huge effort, they were out on their feet in the last quarter and to pay those sort of free kicks after they fought back so hard to get back into the game is a disgrace.
It's just a shame we couldn't put that effort in with 87,000 fans at the game and 1.5 million people watching on TV last week.
And Jackson's tackle was clearly forward momentum from the tackle carrying him forward. I though the rule was designed to stop players from being put down hard callously play well after the ball is gone. The benefit of any doubt should go to the tackler. Despite being gifted 3 goals, we were still up at 3 quarter time. Hope we can keep it up next week.
It's just a shame we couldn't put that effort in with 87,000 fans at the game and 1.5 million people watching on TV last week.
And Jackson's tackle was clearly forward momentum from the tackle carrying him forward. I though the rule was designed to stop players from being put down hard callously play well after the ball is gone. The benefit of any doubt should go to the tackler. Despite being gifted 3 goals, we were still up at 3 quarter time. Hope we can keep it up next week.
I'm unclear to whether mcguane punched the ball over the fence, or just further away and it stayed in the ground, because Newman was trying to tell the ump that the ball didn't go over the fence and the silly ump just kept saying "didn't you watch the DVD". This was on foxtel.
Ridiculous rule anyway.
Ridiculous rule anyway.
craig said:
What I don't get is how is it 'wasting time' if its a goal? (which it was)
I thought the clock stopped after a goal anyways while the umpire did his little jig to get the ball back to the centre and then wait for the flashing light to allow for TV commercials.
I can understand a mcGuane punch being penalised if it was a behind to buy time for our defence to set up for the kick out...but after a goal...I think it was ridiculous to penalise him.
Tubytiger said:
It may have been dumb by McGaune, saw Waite do the same thing last year with same penalty, BUT it is still a stupid rule! What time is being wasted if it is a penalty against time wasting when no time was actually wasted when the ball was not over the fence and/or they could get a ball out of the bag?
I have a bigger issue with the free and 50 against Jackson and free against King.
If the free against King was for contact to Johnson's head from a bump (clearly no contact to the head) why was he not reported and/or a 50m awarded to Johnson?
If the free against King was for contact to Johnson's head from a bump (clearly no contact to the head) why was he not reported and/or a 50m awarded to Johnson?