0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
I like the look of Richard Graham - astute and a nice bloke. Reminds me a bit of Phil Mooney.
Did anyone catch his post match presser with JOC? The young fella was asked what he and Quade said after the match and the coach warned him to be careful about what he said.
Not sure what that was all about.
I meant from the kick off Gunny...where the ref called it back because he said the ball didn't touch the ground....
that was later in the game,wasnt it?
The ref did also give the Force a lot of leeway in slowing down the ball at the breakdown. Too much for my liking and not good for the game.
mate did you watch the same game as us The ref was constantly onto Pocock's case telling him to roll away while he was standing in the second pod waiting for the ball not even close to the action He told Rabbit that he kicked the ball without bouncing from a kickoff when the camera clearly showed that it did actually bounced. He penalized the Force after Ben Daley collapsed the scrum right in front of him.
And also did the ball travel 5 meters when Faingaa threw the ball in to Higginbotham and he returned it to Faingaa who scored
So mate rather leave the ref out of it
I, too, am glad I turned up, thanks (rex)!
Physically impractical - what a marvellous turn of phrase you have there.
It really depends upon a number of factors, which I won't go into in any great detail, but I will give you this:
1) Ref's tolerance level on particular phases of the scrum sequence. (classic example was the FK (not penalty) for no touch when "touch" was called). If the ref calls "touch" then he/she is entitled to either wait for the touch or sanction the offender. If the ref waits for the touch, and one or more of the props is slow to touch, then it is the PROP who is holding things up, not the ref.
2) Ref's vision and/or focus at scrum time. If the props on the side nearest the ref are playing their little front row game then the ref's vision/focus will be on them. If, at the same srcum, the far side props are also playing their little front row games, then the ref is less likely to penalise them.
I thought the camera angles in the game did not really help the viewing audience to discern what was happening. The Foxtel commentators almost never help the viewing audience discern what is happening but alas they do tend to influence the viewer's opinion on what's happening, regardless of whether they are right. (example: a player was penalised for incorrect entry to a ruck and the replay showed he then picked up the ball. Commentator said "he was on his feet". Of course he was on his feet, but he wasn't penalised for the handling of the ball)
That's it for now (rex)
Thanks Ecky
Go and have a nice cool glass of Draino. Bottoms up old boy
Have you got the mailing address for that knob who refereed the Reds V Force game? I want to send him some anthrax
Controversy corner
Yes I did.
Two points - 1. As you say, the ref was constantly warning Pocock (I disagree with your interpretation of where he was positioned). At some point the warnings need to be replaced by a yellow. 2. The Reds got no more favourable decisions than the Force did. Overall I thought the ref was average at best, but he certainly didn't affect the outcome. Certainly the Force aren't complaining, they are getting on with life and being positive.
Especially Phil Kearns - if one of the front row is winning with some from of "front row games" he never ever says anything apart from another one for the Wallabies or something to that effect quiet amusing at times but perhaps not so good for the game=Ecky;277247The Foxtel commentators almost never help the viewing audience discern what is happening but alas they do tend to influence the viewer's opinion on what's happening, regardless of whether they are right.
Last edited by travelling_gerry; 22-02-11 at 12:20.
61 years between Grand SlamsWas the wait worth it - Ya betta baby