Thought I would start a weekly controversial calls blog. The media and commentators seem fixated on the 50:50 calls in our favour, so I thought I would provide some balance with this blog.
1. Nathan Brown no try. Gutherson took control of the ball and RTS knocked it out towards the eels try line. Guth did not lose the ball into RTS, RTS knocked it out. Was a knock on against RTS not Guth. Despite clear video, the video ref called it incorrectly a knock on against Guth and disallowed the try. Normally the video ref describes why. Interestingly he did not explain this ruling. See pics below.
2. Professional Foul by Hiku to deny Parra a chance to take the tap. Obvious to all and no action taken. If he had not of done it we would have had a chance to attack from the 20 metre line.
2. Matterson head high tackle. Removed - not clear.
3. Sivo head high tackle. Removed - as MeelK said Sivo suated after taking the bomb so could be argued he ducked into it..
Replies
I agree with point 1. Should have been a try to Brown. Gutho didn't lose control of the ball at any time.
Not sure about the Matto one. I don't remember it.
With the Sivo tackle, I thought he dropped his head into the shoulder of the opposition player. Play on as far as I'm concerned.
Fair enough - if the replay shows what you said re Sivo I will remove point three. And maybe should remove 2 if not clear.
Thanks
No worries, not trying to burst your bubble.
I just watched it again on NRL.com. 52nd minute. I don't think there was any intent from the tackler. If Sivo keeps his head up, he probably scores a broken nose.
The warriors player gets sinbinned for a push
Brown doesn't for retaliation.
The penalty goalat the end could easily have been called for contact in the air.
That's footy good calls and bad calls.
We won the penalty count.
Im also glad Sivo didn't get rewarded for a penalty and maybe he will try to stop milking
The sin bin has got all the attention as the 50:50s in our favour always do. I am just trying to provide balance as the once against us never get mentioned. Point one was a big mistake against us - and no one says anything. Point 2 and 3 probably should be removed but will leave as they have been discussed.
The way he carried on was a bit over the top considering he was fine not long after.
Agree he needs to stop the carry on. However, he does not dive - he has always received a reasonable knock to the head or neck.
Thing is if it was called a high shot he'd have to go for a HIA whitch seems like not worth the effort
Contact in the air? He's entitled to go for the ball & go a hand to it in batting it back. No way in the world could that have been a penalty against brown for the contest, when the only thing he was contesting was batting the ball back. Which he succeeded in doing as well as RTS getting a hand on it. You're wrong on that point
Do you call it a push in it's a closed first?
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next