| Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #982932] |
Fri, 21 April 2006 15:38 |
|
It's called Destiny...
Great effort though.
|
|
|
| Re: Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #982951 ] |
Fri, 21 April 2006 18:03 |
|
ScArY wrote:
> It's called Destiny...
>
> Great effort though.
>
Yes, Geoff "Destiny" Acton, blind Aussie git.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #982975 ] |
Sat, 22 April 2006 01:05 |
|
Rick,
Was Acton correct?
Karl aka Stomper
|
|
|
| Re: Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #982981 ] |
Sat, 22 April 2006 03:50 |
|
Stomper wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Was Acton correct?
>
>
> Karl aka Stomper
It was impossible to tell from the replays whether Sare touched the line
before scoring, and I believe that's what he said to the very
unimpressive South African ref Marius Jonker.
It seems the benefit of the doubt still goes to the defending team,
although so many other rules in rugby have been changed to reward the
team promoting positive use of the ball, except the one that eally
matters, the scoring of points.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #982987 ] |
Sat, 22 April 2006 05:08 |
|
"rick boyd" <boyd [at] comswest.net.au> wrote in message
news:44498bf9$1 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
> Stomper wrote:
>> Rick,
>>
>> Was Acton correct?
>>
>>
>> Karl aka Stomper
>
> It was impossible to tell from the replays whether Sare touched the line
> before scoring, and I believe that's what he said to the very unimpressive
> South African ref Marius Jonker.
Unimpressive - Dead right there - but - I thought his pedantic scrum
policing
Crouch - Hold
............................................................ .z.z.z.z.z...............Engage
nullified the crusaders scrum that they never got the go forward they
normally have - credit to the Force forwards given of course - but maybe his
ineptitude kept the force in the game.
I would have liked nothing more than to see a Force win - esp living here in
Mandurah (despite being from Auckland) - seems the one element missing from
their game is the last 20 minutes.
Bollocks
>
> It seems the benefit of the doubt still goes to the defending team,
> although so many other rules in rugby have been changed to reward the team
> promoting positive use of the ball, except the one that eally matters, the
> scoring of points.
>
> -- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #982997 ] |
Sat, 22 April 2006 08:56 |
|
Harsh - I would have thought in the absence of proof that the line was
touched then the try should have been awarded.
Karl aka Stomper
|
|
|
| Re: Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #983004 ] |
Sat, 22 April 2006 10:01 |
|
"rick boyd" <boyd [at] comswest.net.au> wrote in message
news:44498bf9$1 [at] quokka.wn.com.au...
> Stomper wrote:
>> Rick,
>>
>> Was Acton correct?
>>
>>
>> Karl aka Stomper
>
> It was impossible to tell from the replays whether Sare touched the line
> before scoring, and I believe that's what he said to the very unimpressive
> South African ref Marius Jonker.
>
> It seems the benefit of the doubt still goes to the defending team,
> although so many other rules in rugby have been changed to reward the team
> promoting positive use of the ball, except the one that eally matters, the
> scoring of points.
>
> -- rick boyd
saw the replay of the non try on ABC Rugby today
It could have been a try but I would hate to have my team lose a game based
on a try getting awarded like that one
|
|
|
| Re: Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #983021 ] |
Sat, 22 April 2006 17:51 |
|
Again shows pathetic reffing. The touch judge right on the spot suggests
Hare was not out. It was obviously a Crusaderrs players leg over the touch
line. The only reson for disallowing the try could be not grounding the
ball. Maybe teams should have to change there socks as well as there jerseys
when playing teams with similar colours... or better still get rid of the
TMO alltogether - send them back to RL where they came from. Another way to
waste time and still get a wrong result (remeber the Bulls game earlier this
year?)
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #983028 ] |
Sun, 23 April 2006 01:34 |
|
"Philip Castleman" <redknob [at] optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:444a5102$0$7603$afc38c87 [at] news.optusnet.com.au...
> Again shows pathetic reffing. The touch judge right on the spot suggests
> Hare was not out. It was obviously a Crusaderrs players leg over the touch
> line. The only reson for disallowing the try could be not grounding the
> ball. Maybe teams should have to change there socks as well as there
> jerseys when playing teams with similar colours... or better still get rid
> of the TMO alltogether - send them back to RL where they came from.
> Another way to waste time and still get a wrong result (remeber the Bulls
> game earlier this year?)
> Phil
>
Not sure if you saw the Brumbies V Canes game but Pauls try was very similar
ie. decision could have went either way
|
|
|
| Re: Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #983032 ] |
Sun, 23 April 2006 04:29 |
|
Philip Castleman wrote:
> Again shows pathetic reffing. The touch judge right on the spot suggests
> Hare was not out. It was obviously a Crusaderrs players leg over the touch
> line. The only reson for disallowing the try could be not grounding the
> ball.
Hare definitely grounded the ball BEFORE reaching the line, but by the time
the ball was visible to the camera again it had Rangi's arm underneath it.
It's possible that the ball was pressed to the grass, out of sight, in the
in-goal area before MacDonald got his arm under it, but "it's possible" is a
pretty flimsy justification for the awarding of a try.
shg
|
|
|
| Re: Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #983351 ] |
Thu, 27 April 2006 12:57 |
|
Simon H. Garlick wrote:
> Philip Castleman wrote:
>> Again shows pathetic reffing. The touch judge right on the spot
>> suggests Hare was not out. It was obviously a Crusaderrs players leg
>> over the touch line. The only reson for disallowing the try could be
>> not grounding the ball.
>
> Hare definitely grounded the ball BEFORE reaching the line, but by
> the time the ball was visible to the camera again it had Rangi's arm
> underneath it. It's possible that the ball was pressed to the grass,
> out of sight, in the in-goal area before MacDonald got his arm under
> it, but "it's possible" is a pretty flimsy justification for the
> awarding of a try.
That was a fair try for sure. I don't know why the video ref didn't award
it. I can only guess that it might be something to do with the trait common
to Australians of going out of their way to be fair, even at a cost to
themselves. You can bet that if the same incident had occurred in NZ there
is no way that the video ref would have no awarded it. There would be a
public uproar otherwise.
|
|
|
| Re: Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #983403 ] |
Fri, 28 April 2006 06:39 |
|
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:57:52 +1200, "ERNEST THE SHEEP"
<Ernest_the_Sheep [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>Simon H. Garlick wrote:
>> Philip Castleman wrote:
>>> Again shows pathetic reffing. The touch judge right on the spot
>>> suggests Hare was not out. It was obviously a Crusaderrs players leg
>>> over the touch line. The only reson for disallowing the try could be
>>> not grounding the ball.
>>
>> Hare definitely grounded the ball BEFORE reaching the line, but by
>> the time the ball was visible to the camera again it had Rangi's arm
>> underneath it. It's possible that the ball was pressed to the grass,
>> out of sight, in the in-goal area before MacDonald got his arm under
>> it, but "it's possible" is a pretty flimsy justification for the
>> awarding of a try.
>
>That was a fair try for sure. I don't know why the video ref didn't award
>it. I can only guess that it might be something to do with the trait common
>to Australians of going out of their way to be fair, even at a cost to
>themselves. You can bet that if the same incident had occurred in NZ there
>is no way that the video ref would have no awarded it. There would be a
>public uproar otherwise.
>
LOL!
Myk
|
|
|
| Re: Hard Luck Force/Rick [message #983492 ] |
Sat, 29 April 2006 08:22 |
|
ERNEST THE SHEEP wrote:
> Simon H. Garlick wrote:
>
>>Philip Castleman wrote:
>>
>>>Again shows pathetic reffing. The touch judge right on the spot
>>>suggests Hare was not out. It was obviously a Crusaderrs players leg
>>>over the touch line. The only reson for disallowing the try could be
>>>not grounding the ball.
>>
>>Hare definitely grounded the ball BEFORE reaching the line, but by
>>the time the ball was visible to the camera again it had Rangi's arm
>>underneath it. It's possible that the ball was pressed to the grass,
>>out of sight, in the in-goal area before MacDonald got his arm under
>>it, but "it's possible" is a pretty flimsy justification for the
>>awarding of a try.
>
>
> That was a fair try for sure. I don't know why the video ref didn't award
> it. I can only guess that it might be something to do with the trait common
> to Australians of going out of their way to be fair, even at a cost to
> themselves. You can bet that if the same incident had occurred in NZ there
> is no way that the video ref would have no awarded it. There would be a
> public uproar otherwise.
>
A far more common trait along the lines of weather/pitch reports and
cell phones would be far more believable
|
|
|
