The attached picture shows that if it went to the bunker it would of been rubbed out anyway as an obstruction so let's all stop complaining about it.
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"It's now out of the NRL's hands. If the court says the conditions of the release are valid and still stand then that is that. The NRL can't stomp all over the Eels' legal rights. Lomax told the Eels in writing he was proceeding with the Storm…"
"You'd think it's in the NRL's best interest to be on Parra's side here. If they take the side of Lomax then every player contract means nothing. This is bigger than a single case- it could open up a world where players do whatever they want,…"
"When the announcement was made by the Eels regarding the dispute with Lomax, the club made a very important note in their commentary- the agreement was made in 'Good Faith'. This is a very important principle in legal agreements- both parties agree…"
"Yeah, but does that count if the opportunity never eventuated, is what I think they'll argue"
Replies
This coming from a juvenile, smutty little twat that calls himself 'vertical smile'!!
Fair dinkum! You're the sort of 'limited' person who watches re-runs of John Hopoate sticking his finger up players' dates and doing 'that's gold'!
Drinking Bundy OG and watching Fatty on the Footy Show box set.
Stop with the bold italics. Your not in the office.
Actually they ruled on the knick on bunker never checked the try as they could only rule on the captain's challenge.
The system is confusing and ridiculous
It's actually easy to be negative when you support this club
Flicking through your posts one would be mistaken for concluding you are this site’s most negative person. So often your comments are laced with a putdown against the other person, who, in the main are simply putting forward their opinion. I have said it before ‘pot calling kettle black’. Chill, smell the roses, find a hobby.
OK - so I am more than a little confoozed here.
A tip on, that allegedly goes forward is now a Knock on?
In the past tip ons, that travel forward have been called a forward pass.
You will see one in the Cows (?) I think which is a forward pass.
A knock-on is committed when, in an attempt to play at the ball, a player knocks the ball towards their opponents' dead ball line with their hands or arms and it touches either the ground, or an opposing player. However, the ball may be knocked back.
At which point did the ball touch an opposing player or hit the ground?
Another "Penalty" Peranara Pathetic Perfomance.
The bottom line has become "If a player does not catch the ball 'cleanly' then it will be deemed a knock on regardless of the direction the ball may take after being touched" - That is now how 99.99% of these issues are adjudicated on field.
THERE WAS NO KNOCK ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Amazing what you can learn from all the geniuses on twitter, hey Offside?
I Don't have Twitter don't understand the attraction to it my mate sent that to me.
I think it should be a try but the way they rule most obstructions as a no try I and watching the play again if it was sent up for review it would of been interesting.
what the photo doesn't show is a milli second later the player is free to chase, Fergo from the position HE put himself in.. he wasn't impeded . Don't forget it was a tap on by king Gutherson .. that's how fast the play was .. so stop thinking about it
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next