Australia vs New Zealand

[Gay-Guy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Radman @ Nov 30 2008, 10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Here is the first part of the game with Brit commentary, check the user for the rest of it. Dunno how long it will stay up for due to copyright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzHli9cDTiM[/b]

Yep there are 11 parts....I have downloaded the lot.

Anyway let us get back on topic lol!

It must be time to go out and buy a kiwi jersey.  No longer shameful wearing one around lol!  Take it to Aus next time you go on holiday.

 

[St Helens RLFC]

I'm looking to get some cheap RLWC jerseys if some are on sale.

 

[CeeJay]

Sorry, what I meant was, Im watching the full game......in small parts on youtube. Its the same british one gayguy was talking about. Great game, glad to finally see all of it. I felt that the ref made a shocking call penalising the aussies when they drove someone ( hohaia I think )back into the in goal. He called held and penalised them 2 seconds later when all they did was complete the motion they had already started. why would he even call held? they didnt have two goes at it, they just drove him back, and not even they far. That was the beginning of the end too, with slater havin his brain blink off of the kick at the end of the set the kiwis got as a result of the penalty. Other than that I cant see what all the contraversy is about.

 

[St Helens RLFC]

He called "HELD" 3 times at the top of his voice and they carried on driving. Penalty. Whether or not he was held is an entirely different matter, but he made it clear they should stop the tackle.

 

[CeeJay]

Yeah I know, he actually called held four times but it was over the space of 2 seconds, by which time they had already crossed the goaline. There was nothing they could have done to stop in time, 2 seconds was not enough time for the two main tacklers to stop driving forward. But its done now, and Im certainly not going to waste any time feeling sorry for the aussies or fueling conspiracy theories. The ref made a bad call, but dont they all.

Another interesting thing was how the pommy commentarty team were horrified by the steve gansons penalty try, and yet the aussie commentators ( two out of three anyway) said it should be a penalty try before ganson had even decided.

 

[St Helens RLFC]

I thought it was a penalty try as well.

 

[Gay-Guy]

I thought Hohaia had been fairly dragged back into the in goal...and that the ref was a bit biased calling held while he was going back and just about at the line.

Not that I cared....we will take the win.

 

[Radman]

Been trying to get a Kiwis Jersey since the win but there has been big demand for them so have to wait for more stock.

 

[CeeJay]

I think it was a penalty try too. The commentators said that you have to be 100 percent sure to award the try, but you can never be 100 percent sure of anything! (yeah death and taxes and know) Im 99 percent sure hohaia would have caught the ball, and slater would have hit him. Slater had no play on the ball IMO. It was a fair call.

 

[St Helens RLFC]

Slater might have got there first but the rules state that the benefit of the doubt is meant to go to the attacking team.

 

[ak47]

There were plenty of shocking calls â€" but not taking anything away, the kiwis deserved it more, they earnt the ***le.

 

[ak47]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (St Helens RLFC @ Dec 1 2008, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Slater might have got there first but the rules state that the benefit of the doubt is meant to go to the attacking team.[/b]

The interpretations of some of these words is bullshit â€" NRL can be a joke at times

 

[Radman]

I'll just accept the call by the officials, they know better than you or I know. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :nea:

 

[Wizard From Oz]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Radman @ Nov 30 2008, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I'll just accept the call by the officials, they know better than you or I know. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :nea:[/b]

Yeah ya kinda get in that numb place dont you - The penalties come, the penalties go - And you dont understand too much of what is in between

 

[Radman]

That sounds more like union what you're on about lol!.

 

[CeeJay]

does anyone know what the exact rule for penalty tries in league is? Now Ive got a friend telling me that the video ref only has to be of the opinion that there would have been a try in order to award it. Agreed about the benefit of the doubt. I think that if theres is going to be a benefit of the doubt rule it should not go in favour of the attacking side, that way the scores would stay as they are and there would be less contraversy. I guess then it becomes the same as calling it no try.

 

[ak47]

i believe the penalty try rule goes along the lines of - 'beyond reasonable doubt'
if any doubt - benefit of the doubt
beyond reasonable doubt where an infringement has occured - penalty try
but i guess with benefit of the doubt this only applies if no infringement has occured -
this is why benefit of the doubt CANNOT apply to penalty trys, doubt is 100% existent in penalty trys, and there is no way escaping it.

 

[ak47]

http://library.thinkquest.org/3369/rugby/rule.htm#6
d) The Referee awards a penalty try which he may do if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is awarded between the goal-posts irrespective of where the offence occurred.
i guess you really cant argue the case if it boils down to opinion - the only argument is consistency, and i tell you i have seen worse NOT GIVEN, and i dont think it was a penalty try, and history would back me up

 

[Gay-Guy]

I think what gave it away was Monaghans inability to be a professional fouler.  If he had impeded Hohaia with a bit more cunning then it would have not been a penalty try.  Monghan would have simply been penalised...sent off at the most...but no penalty try.

It became a penalty try because of how blatant the foul looked.  This in my opinion is what persuaded the video ref.

After Monaghan realised he had missed the ball he did not even turn around to look for the ball.  His eyes were directly on Hohaia and he went straight for him.  Making matters worse he tackled him around the neck!  Then after he had done high shot he went into another direction like a guilty school kid...he didn't even bother looking to see where Billy Slater had taken the ball.

What he should have done after he missed the ball is:
- Turn his back and look at the ball.
- Move sideways into the path of Hohaia.
- While trying to get moving after the ball he should at the same time move sideways to jostle Hohaia and force him as best as he can to NOT have a direct line of run towards the ball.

Some tips from soccer players would have helped when it came to jostling.  Also he could have gotten tips from watching rugby players when they hold their ground and turn the other way.

It is a bit like when they make rulings on head shots.  they are all head shots....however some look accidental and are just put on report....others though such as Adrian Morley shots look 100% deliberate and the result is an instant send off.  Monaghans mistake is that he could not disguise his foul. instead he made it look like he was commiting the only action he could do to prevent a definite try.

 

[ak47]

good point GG - i agree