Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jedhead, post: 3245527, member: 9518"] It's quite obvious that if there is an ambiguous slant to this rule then it needs to be rectified immediately by the NRL with a clarifying directive. Will it happen? I doubt it. V'landy and his brigade only make the rules up on the fly; corrections only happen after the NRL favourite teams kick up a stink. Hypothetically speaking if Walker's kick paid dividends and resulted in him playing on to score a try they would not have called it back. So in effect - he took his advantage. The fact his execution was sadly lacking and he panicked should not then allow the ref to call it back and give him another go to get it right. It's mind-numbingly stupid to rule otherwise. But - Roosters. On Thursday night Kevvie could have acted dumb and simply asked at the presser how the HIA works? As Penrith were able to make almost double our interchanges. He could have also asked what constitutes a head-high so he can explain it to Tommy Deardon. The one genuine opportunity for us to make a free sub and have access to the 18th man (if needed) and we never even got a penalty. Yet, the next day Momorovski is facing a three game ban for the tackle. All that does is advantage teams who are about to play Penrith. The Broncos are again left holding the baby. Was the bunker instructed to take no action as well? It was replayed 3 times. Last night you heard the bunker categorically say 'the attacker has no eyes for the ball' during a contested bomb and so he ruled in the defending team's favour. When Corey Oates was backed into by Staines he too had 'no eyes for the ball' in fact Staines' action was fully reckless and dangerous as big Oatsey came down pretty badly and could have easily broke his neck, but it was play on and Penrith get six more and score. Why such glaring disparity?? [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now