<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Aug 17 2009, 04:51 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Aug 17 2009, 10:22 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Aug 17 2009, 01:31 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Aug 18 2009, 03:17 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"it never entered my head to kick the ball out. I couldn't see what a draw would do for anyone."
How selfless of him.[/b]
I agree with him. At the time he was looking for support runners to move it out of the 22. They were too chicken to take it on, and he still tried to keep the game alive. I think that was a good choice - a draw meant they couldn't win the series - but the challenge was stupid and definitely NOT 50/50.
But not as stupid as selecting Vickers. Now everyone thinks ROG is the villain, whereas Vickers "redeemed" himself in the dead rubber.
Lions should have won the series. ROG wanted them to win the series. It wasn't because of him they failed.
[/b][/quote]
I agree with Shtove here. I'm not saying that ROG can't be a "cock" as you've all said, but, I think he was trying to make something happened...albeit, trying to make something happen while probably a bit concused from the tackle debacle.
[/b][/quote]
He's certainly polarised opinions; There are those of us who think he's a complete cock that binned the Lions tour with his inept bumblings, then there are 80,000,000 (who were there in '78) that think he's an innocent scapegoat and should be lavished with forgiveness and praise...
[/b][/quote]
I don't think he deserves praise, just not the cross. How many of us that play this sport have been put in a decision making situation. Most of the time it's 50/50. All I'm saying is he took a chance. It obviously didn't work out. We can argue back and forth about whether or not it was a boneheaded decision, but at the end of the day, it was either a tie or a loss. I guess he chose to go down swinging.