Round 7 Match Thread

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Standard all in brawl with everybody holding everybody after Nightingale got frustrated and started it.

Can't see the issue here.

It's not like Slater was free and could run around throwing coward punches like a Merrin or Jennings.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

You are again proving to be the moronic tard that I have always suspected you to be.

The two examples are almost identical and both are professional fouls and not penalty tries because there is some possibility in the ref's mind that the player would not regather possession (either from the dummy half pass that is rarely dropped or from the bouncing grubber that is often fumbled).

Seriously, I know it will be out of character but just try and make an effort to stop being a dumb khunt.

Im sorry but how is 1. a fullback holding a player down in the field of play similar to 2. a bloke about to land on the ball to score a try and being held back? Both are professional fouls. The difference is one is directly stopping a try, and the other is stopping play well before it may lead to a try.

You're doing a good job filling McFlufwits shoes, buddy.

Pieman wrote:

Im sorry but how is 1. a fullback holding a player down in the field of play similar to 2. a bloke about to land on the ball to score a try and being held back? Both are professional fouls. The difference is one is directly stopping a try, and the other is stopping play well before it may lead to a try.

You're doing a good job filling McFlufwits shoes, buddy.

Both are directly stopping a try in the same play mate.

The fullback example could well be one pass to a bloke in the clear (i.e. one re-gathering, per the CLaw example).

It could also be a dummy half just falling over the line (i.e. no re-gathering), which is even a higher probability of a try.

I'm honestly struggling to see why you are not able to fathom these simple probabilities

Honeysett wrote:

Obvious troll is obvious.

Possible trolling but that is basically what you are suggesting.....which is completely inaccurate.

Krump wrote:
Jeez your a hypocrite. Say that other people have a state based bias....
Even Slater himself laughs at the "not his go" comments when there isn't a camera around.

That's deadset rubbish.

Yes, like everyone I am biased but that hasn't stopped me praising the likes of Mitchell Pearce or Ricky Stuart or claiming something is a soft refereeing call or NRL decision, above state bias.
It also doesn't stop me claiming Hodgo is a grub.

I simply just don't think Slater and Smith are grubs and I don't buy into the flimsy examples that get put forth to try and justify it.

Put forth a decent example and I'll agree with you.

Multiple chances to throw a swing when he was 1v1, waiting till he was held back by several players.

The headbutts between Jarryd Hayne and himself.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Both are directly stopping a try in the same play mate.

The fullback example could well be one pass to a bloke in the clear (i.e. one re-gathering, per the CLaw example).

It could also be a dummy half just falling over the line (i.e. no re-gathering), which is even a higher probability of a try.

I'm honestly struggling to see why you are not able to fathom these simple probabilities

No they are not.

The first case they are stopping a possible try that may occur in the next play, or after a few passes or even a play or 2 after. Thats why its a sin bin and not a penalty try.

In the second case (Lawrence) - and the video that was posted, its stopping the try thats happening in that play, it next immediate action is scoring the try. Its not passing or kicking or even running with it from 5 out. Its falling on the fucking ball thats right in front of him, a play that directly leads to the try. Thats why it should have been a penalty try.

If a bloke is the only one there chasing, it should be assumed that he is going to score the try, and if he is held back, it should be a penalty try.

You dont even know what you are arguing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-zLuyCI3q4 - penalty try. This one has even more doubt than the Lawrence one and was given. If you deny the player the chance to score it, and there is a reasonable chance that he will, it should ALWAYS be a penalty try.

What about when Smith stomped on a players head like 3 times in a tackle last year.

"Oh he didnt know he was there", fucking bullshit.
Ill give him the first one as an accident, but the second so on are him just stomping on someones head, and because hes not looking at him he can claim it as "didnt know he was there"

Pieman wrote:What about when Smith stomped on a players head like 3 times in a tackle last year.

"Oh he didnt know he was there", fucking bullshit.
Ill give him the first one as an accident, but the second so on are him just stomping on someones head, and because hes not looking at him he can claim it as "didnt know he was there"

Not his go, mate.

McKinnon did it to himself, let's make that point known right now on the field instead of being a good bloke and sucking it up.

Captain Cam is going to cop it in the next match thread write up I can feel it

Pieman wrote:

No they are not.

The first case they are stopping a possible try that may occur in the next play, or after a few passes or even a play or 2 after. Thats why its a sin bin and not a penalty try.

In the second case (Lawrence) - and the video that was posted, its stopping the try thats happening in that play, it next immediate action is scoring the try. Its not passing or kicking or even running with it from 5 out. Its falling on the fucking ball thats right in front of him, a play that directly leads to the try. Thats why it should have been a penalty try.

If a bloke is the only one there chasing, it should be assumed that he is going to score the try, and if he is held back, it should be a penalty try.

You dont even know what you are arguing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-zLuyCI3q4 - penalty try. This one has even more doubt than the Lawrence one and was given. If you deny the player the chance to score it, and there is a reasonable chance that he will, it should ALWAYS be a penalty try.

And go back through the outrage that occurred at the time that one was given.....
Far more than what has occurred with CLaw's correct call on thw eekend you utter goose.

What about this one then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNQHpFziIf0

If it was a simple exercise (and I could be fucked) I'd look up how many over the years have not been awarded penalty tries in similar circumstances but at the end of the day, I don't care what you say mate, the ref's will err on the side of caution when it comes to whether a bloke was going to score or not and never go down the path of awarding a penalty try if there is a 'reasonable chance' a try would have been scored......
Hence why there is this sentiment out there that the ref's interpretation is that they have to be 'certain' a try would have been scored.

Pieman wrote:What about when Smith stomped on a players head like 3 times in a tackle last year.

"Oh he didnt know he was there", fucking bullshit.
Ill give him the first one as an accident, but the second so on are him just stomping on someones head, and because hes not looking at him he can claim it as "didnt know he was there"

This one??:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCkpIOCsRQY

That's disappointingly soft from Luke - barely even grazed him whilst lashing out and hardly 'stomping' you battler.

Worst case scenario I'd give that a penalty for accidental contact but hardly an incident.

I personally have more of an issue with the cannonball tackle which isn't as plausible to shrug off as an accident.

Bren wrote:Captain Cam is going to cop it in the next match thread write up I can feel it

Pieman wrote:

No they are not.

The first case they are stopping a possible try that may occur in the next play, or after a few passes or even a play or 2 after. Thats why its a sin bin and not a penalty try.

In the second case (Lawrence) - and the video that was posted, its stopping the try thats happening in that play, it next immediate action is scoring the try. Its not passing or kicking or even running with it from 5 out. Its falling on the fucking ball thats right in front of him, a play that directly leads to the try. Thats why it should have been a penalty try.

If a bloke is the only one there chasing, it should be assumed that he is going to score the try, and if he is held back, it should be a penalty try.

You dont even know what you are arguing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-zLuyCI3q4 - penalty try. This one has even more doubt than the Lawrence one and was given. If you deny the player the chance to score it, and there is a reasonable chance that he will, it should ALWAYS be a penalty try.

In fairness, that was a shit call and not an example of what is usually called. There is a fair chance Slater still got to that ball before Hohaiha. The video ref had a shit day that game, already ruling no knock on when there was a blatent knock on by Marshall for their first try. This was also proof that it was David Williams who lost the world cup, not poor Billy Slater who normally gets the blame.

A better example than OSM's somewhat dubious example of a player being held down in the tackle is if a player drops a bomb and an offside player dives on it a metre out where an attacker would otherwise pick it up and score.

Honeysett wrote:

Multiple chances to throw a swing when he was 1v1, waiting till he was held back by several players.

The headbutts between Jarryd Hayne and himself.

Why should you believe Nightingale? He doesn't even tell the truth about what country he should be playing for.

And wasn't it Hayne headbutting Slater? He had history against Corey Payne.

Dip wrote:

Why should you believe Nightingale? He doesn't even tell the truth about what country he should be playing for.

And wasn't it Hayne headbutting Slater? He had history against Corey Payne.

1. Why am I believing Nightingale? I can see with my own eyes that Slater started throwing punches the moment he knew he couldn't get hit back.

2. They both did, Hayne is a grub for it as well.

And since for whatever reason we can't have a go at another player without getting all defensive about our own state players or rubbishing the other state players. Slater, much like the rest of his QLD brothers picked a fight and ending up on the floor ala Brett White put Steve Price to sleep when he shaped up.

*Sniff sniff* Smells like origin is around the corner because the shit slinging has started.

Honeysett wrote:And since for whatever reason we can't have a go at another player without getting all defensive about our own state players or rubbishing the other state players. Slater, much like the rest of his QLD brothers picked a fight and ending up on the floor ala Brett White put Steve Price to sleep when he shaped up.

Maybe if White spent more time practicing his football instead of his boxing, NSW would have won more than once in the last decade.

Dip wrote:

Maybe if White spent more time practicing his football instead of his boxing, NSW would have won more than once in the last decade.

He didn't have a chance in Origin, first hit up he got dog shotted third man in from Thaiday and broke his nose.

Plus we couldn't buy a call against QLD. Bird hits hit in the head by Tate, QLD penalty. Tate gets hit in the head by Jennings Jennings sin bin. Let's not start with the video ref debacle either.

Also convenient we've moved away from Slater being a grub when hard evidence comes into play.