Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lewis Brown Try

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Yep should have been a penalty to us.

    If people think Pearces kick dead was a turning point then surely Manly getting 6 points instead of us getting a penalty was a bigger one.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by roostersrule2 View Post
      Yep should have been a penalty to us.

      If people think Pearces kick dead was a turning point then surely Manly getting 6 points instead of us getting a penalty was a bigger one.
      I think that try put them in the lead to boot.

      Comment


      • #18
        The Roosters were outplayed in the 2nd half, without a doubt and did not deserve to win that game.

        But Cecchin's display was shockingly one sided. Manly centre ball carrying arm hits ground, gets up and passes it early in the first half, scoring from the ensuing repeat set. Overruling the pocket on the Brown try (he refused to listen what pocket had to say) to the forward passes called against the Roosters only, Manu getting dragged in goal when that gets called held 99/100, to even getting a knock on short of the line wrong with a minute to go. Every critical decision he came up with was in Manly's favour. His arrogance towards the pocket for the Brown 'try' was disgracefully unprofessional.
        Last edited by Waerea-Beast!; 08-07-2017, 12:11 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Didn't Radley pass forward to give them back the ball ahead of Brown try? All these debatable turning points I'm pretty sure were from us gifting it to them, possession wise. I say Manly didn't win because they are so amazing, they won thanks to us only putting in for the first 30.
          Cherry also said the turning point was who scored first after HT.

          As for Cecchin.. one of your best, fool. Absolute GUESSWORK where Archer must be held accountable, it's got to be a directive, as it happens in too many games, if not all. You can solve it by referring to refs head cameras, would prove what they saw, but that seems way too accountable. One ref says no, the other yes. What a mess

          Comment


          • #20
            Yeah it shouldn't have been a try on two counts.

            One for the driver by the Manly teammate and secondly just like Hess last week he didn't even get the freaking ball down.

            They're taking this "lack of conclusive" evidence to overturn wayyyy too far.

            Still, how 3 or 4 defenders let a plod like Lewis Brown get so close is just as concerning as the decision itself.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by chopstiks View Post
              Didn't Radley pass forward to give them back the ball ahead of Brown try? All these debatable turning points I'm pretty sure were from us gifting it to them, possession wise. I say Manly didn't win because they are so amazing, they won thanks to us only putting in for the first 30.
              Cherry also said the turning point was who scored first after HT.

              As for Cecchin.. one of your best, fool. Absolute GUESSWORK where Archer must be held accountable, it's got to be a directive, as it happens in too many games, if not all. You can solve it by referring to refs head cameras, would prove what they saw, but that seems way too accountable. One ref says no, the other yes. What a mess
              great idea. For 50/50 try/no try calls from ref, go to the head cam to see what the ref "obviously" saw. Won't happen for exactly the reason they outlined. The game is way to close to gambling and closer still to the stench

              Written and published on behalf of the Liberal Party, Queensland

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Axe View Post

                great idea. For 50/50 try/no try calls from ref, go to the head cam to see what the ref "obviously" saw. Won't happen for exactly the reason they outlined. The game is way to close to gambling and closer still to the stench
                And.. if he obviously saw it, why is he even checking it.

                Goes back to the big question - why refs must make a call either way when referring to Patten & co?
                Because we all know as soon as Cecchin gives it (and klein or perenera don't give it), what KFCs chicken nugget board is going to deliver.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I thought Toupo's ball for that try was flagrantly forward. That's football.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Look we gave them possession so easily for them to be in that situation to score. No try, or try we didn't deserve to win that game with the way we were throwing the ball around as if it was nothing in second half.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by can'tkeepagoodcoqdown View Post
                      Not at all! we were out played. However i can not believe that the refs and video refs missed this.
                      I can. The refs and the bunker see what they are told.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X