Replies

  • I don't like it!
    But technically the only thing wrong with it was mannering held a player.
  • I loved it! So retro 80's Eels. Mannering probably should have been penalized but screening per se is not against the rules.

    One way to think about it is that it's a play dedicated to pushing the rule to its maximum (almost literal) interpretation. By contrast, many other plays, such as downing the kicker or Pauli and Scott styled taking out the playmaker (Soward and Thurston) depend upon hoping the rule is interpreted minimally (anything but literal). Put differently, maximizing what the team can do versus hoping the referees minimize what they can do. I'd prefer team maximizing their own innovative play over relying on lack of referee action any day, as the latter is what have us Storm wrestle tactics and Bulldog sheppards when Barba was there.
    • It starts off great, then turns into something stupid when every club starts with their interpretation, ends up being more grey area in the game for the refs to police and let's face it they are incompetent.
    • How is it not illegal? It's technically obstruction. The ball carrier is standing behind his teammates and taking advantage by kicking a field goal.

  • I thought it would be called back as a sheppard 

  • http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9VXNYxVMy0M

    David Liddiard scores.
This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Hell On Eels replied to EA's discussion Take Aways from the game
"We need to own our poor performance, and bounce back.
But I wouldn't let officiating off the hook — they are also  accountable for their performance.
 "
12 minutes ago
Shawn McCabe replied to LB's discussion 1eE Modern day Eels team: Hooker
"Captain Cayless the useless what a fraud he had nothing vety overrated. "
14 minutes ago
DYNASTY.LOADING replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Hopgood 2 week ban,
"shame on you"
18 minutes ago
Stevo replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Hopgood 2 week ban,
"Hopgood should bring his dad to help him"
18 minutes ago
More…