What was most disappointing was listening to Gal say that Slater "took one look and told me that penalty try was exactly what was going to happen..." Why did we have to sit through a Gould/Freddy Panthers carry on when someone with the best current analysis offering some real perspective instead of Gus yes-men?
“What is he supposed to do”. I think the most controversial discussion is whether current commentators are able to move along with the game or we need a fresh batch that understand the rules.
Zero controversy. If he's not belted in the head all Leilua has to do is abide by the laws of gravity and continue falling the last 15 centimetres to the turf with the ball tucked under his arm. Belting blokes in the head is foul play. foul play that prevents a try that would otherwise have been scored in the opinion of th officials is a penalty try. No other decision possible. Now turn off the computer and go have a lie down.
AAarrrggggg.. don't remind me. There is still a divot in the bitumen of a quiet street of a sleepy NSW South Coast where a TV landed in the evening of 26th September, '99...
yes someone needs to pull those dills aside and let them know 95% of us have moved on, they're preaching to the peanut gallery and it's getting embarrassing.
It’s slightly different from that decision in that unlike Ainscough, Jennings did actually make contact with the ball as well as the ball-carrier’s head so you could argue that the ball came loose because of that contact, not because of the high shot - but a penalty try only has to be in the opinion of the referee, and I’m happy for this to be deemed a penalty try. Nobody should have to worry about getting hit in the head when they’re trying to score.
Only massive controversy if you’re one of the dinosaurs in the nine commentary box, flailing around with those tiny forelimbs trying to grasp relevance.
Awarding more penalty tries is one of the better things to happen to the game. It's the best thing to happen to the Tigers since they put 50 on Manly in a trial match.
Yes it was like the 1999 grand final where Jamie Aisncough was trying to hit the ball from Craig Smith's grasp but hit him in the head. Same result, a penalty try.
Leilua was hit in the head as he was attempting to put the ball down. Hit to the head is a penalty, so crossing the line with ball in hand and hit to the head = a penalty try, tight decision but a correct decision.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
That is great. I only swore at my fackin chair.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
:laughing: :laughing: inanimate object.. lol.. I hope it wasn't like this...;- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNJ5ySQPxrg
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I was in a group that were Mundine-o-phobes who were happy and I swore at an inanimate object.
Nat
Roar Guru
What was most disappointing was listening to Gal say that Slater "took one look and told me that penalty try was exactly what was going to happen..." Why did we have to sit through a Gould/Freddy Panthers carry on when someone with the best current analysis offering some real perspective instead of Gus yes-men?
Flexis
Roar Rookie
“What is he supposed to do”. I think the most controversial discussion is whether current commentators are able to move along with the game or we need a fresh batch that understand the rules.
Short Memory
Guest
Zero controversy. If he's not belted in the head all Leilua has to do is abide by the laws of gravity and continue falling the last 15 centimetres to the turf with the ball tucked under his arm. Belting blokes in the head is foul play. foul play that prevents a try that would otherwise have been scored in the opinion of th officials is a penalty try. No other decision possible. Now turn off the computer and go have a lie down.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
:laughing:
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Controversy? One of the most clear-cut penalty tries you could see.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
AAarrrggggg.. don't remind me. There is still a divot in the bitumen of a quiet street of a sleepy NSW South Coast where a TV landed in the evening of 26th September, '99...
John
Guest
This taking out the fullback in the air under the guise of 'going for the football because your eyes are on it' has become epidemic.
Red Rob
Roar Rookie
yes someone needs to pull those dills aside and let them know 95% of us have moved on, they're preaching to the peanut gallery and it's getting embarrassing.
souvalis
Roar Rookie
James Roberts staying on the field for forceful contact to Kikau's head after rushing in most controversial.
Harry
Guest
It’s slightly different from that decision in that unlike Ainscough, Jennings did actually make contact with the ball as well as the ball-carrier’s head so you could argue that the ball came loose because of that contact, not because of the high shot - but a penalty try only has to be in the opinion of the referee, and I’m happy for this to be deemed a penalty try. Nobody should have to worry about getting hit in the head when they’re trying to score.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Only massive controversy if you’re one of the dinosaurs in the nine commentary box, flailing around with those tiny forelimbs trying to grasp relevance.
The Sports Lover
Roar Rookie
Nothing “massively controversial” to see here. If anything it was “conventional”. Correct ruling.
the outsider
Roar Rookie
Agreed, dramatic finish definitely, but not particularly controversial.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Awarding more penalty tries is one of the better things to happen to the game. It's the best thing to happen to the Tigers since they put 50 on Manly in a trial match.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Yes it was like the 1999 grand final where Jamie Aisncough was trying to hit the ball from Craig Smith's grasp but hit him in the head. Same result, a penalty try.
Big Mig
Roar Rookie
Leilua was hit in the head as he was attempting to put the ball down. Hit to the head is a penalty, so crossing the line with ball in hand and hit to the head = a penalty try, tight decision but a correct decision.