1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Cowboys Bleatings - The facts

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Rex, Sep 17, 2012.

  1. Rex

    Rex Well-Known Member

    +2,281 / 60
    The Cowboys have bleated on endlessly about how they were supposedly duded. They have 3 claims.

    1. Claim 1: The last try should have been a no-try because Foran touched the ball.

    The facts:
    a. According to the rules of the game the referees MUST award the try unless they are CERTAIN Foran touched the ball. Is there any doubt at all?
    b. Neither of the referees on the field thought he had touched the ball.
    c. Neither of the touch judges on the field thought he had touched the ball.
    d. The two video referees agreed they could not be certain he had touched the ball.
    e. The only person who knows whether there was a touch – Foran – says he didn’t.
    f. The only camera angles which support the theory he touched the ball obscure Thurston’s hand and arm behind Foran’s – optical illusions. There is only a certainty that Thurston touched the ball because otherwise Foran’s hand would have needed to pass through Thurston’s hand to get to the ball.
    g. A microscopic finger bend? The Emporer’s new clothes? If you want to see a finger bend others didn’t see wind back to the 38th minute when there is a HUGE finger bend in virtually identical circumstances – by a Cowboys player – and the line dropout decision incorrectly goes against Manly. Only difference is Manly was good enough to hold them out.

    2. Claim 2: Taufua made a double movement

    The facts:
    a. The side-on view indicates the ball touched the line at first planting before the ball lifted. BOD try before anything further happens.
    b. The referee believed that momentum carried the ball over the line rather than a second movement causing this. The fact that Taufua was full stretch initially and ended up with his hips on the line proves the referee was correct.
    c. The ball was only lifted momentarily through the efforts of the Cowboys defender.
    d. At normal speed, the illusion of a possible double movement disappears.

    3. Claim 3: Taufua forced the ball in the in-goal before he made a long run

    The facts:
    a. Taufua did fall in the in-goal with the ball in his possession and the ball did touch the ground.
    b. The referee ruled it was not intentionally grounded.
    c. As it turned out, the Cowboys got no disadvantage from this ruling because Manly immediately lost possession at the same place the Cowboys would have started their six from a line dropout.
    d. In the 16th minute the identical scenario happened to Bowen, he fell in-goal with possession, the ball touched the ground, and he was allowed to play on and passed the ball to try and get out. Lyon challenged the referee why Bowen was allowed to play on after grounding the ball, and apparently got the same ruling that the ball was not intentionally grounded.
  2. DSM5

    DSM5 Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    +516 / 0
    And not forgetting their 'try' from a forward pass, after a strip, where we should have got a penalty and been down their end. And let's not forget that the Cows came 5th. Why do they think they're entitled to progress?
  3. Volley

    Volley Well-Known Member

    +549 / 14
    Just on the Bowen and Taufua groundings in goal, if the Cowboys chase was as good as Manly's, it would've been irrelevant. Manly had about 4 or 5 players down there, the Cowboys had 1, Tate, who Taufua beat easily.
  4. Stevo

    Stevo Well-Known Member

    Old Bar, NSW
    +1,202 / 21
    Although its not in the rule book (i've looked) the intentional grounding rule was not made up as Thurston would have you believe. It was also used in a match 1 month ago between St George and the Roosters. Not sure when i was introduced but it isn't a new thing.
  5. MK Eagle

    MK Eagle Well-Known Member

    +247 / 0
    This is the point - we have speculation over 1 try while from what I seen, Tafua was not even benefit of doubt - the ball tipped the white chalk initially for a straight up try. The Cows 2nd half strip & foward pass conveniently was swept under the carpet.
    Simple truth = Manly were the better side & won.
  6. bones

    bones Bones Knows Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    +8,865 / 99
    Who cares how we won? I hope we win the GF in even more controversial circumstances just to piss everyone off even more.
  7. IQofalimabean

    IQofalimabean Well-Known Member

    +272 / 11
    Winners are grinners, losers well goes without saying.
  8. Arko-admirer

    Arko-admirer Active Member

    +61 / 0
    Just checking but I thought Taufau might have actually dropped it in goal.

    Not that I really care and of course we were by far the better side
  9. DSM5

    DSM5 Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    +516 / 0
    No drop, it was pushed out of his hands.
  10. Peter C

    Peter C Well-Known Member

    +735 / 16
    As far as I'm concerned it never left his hands, simple as that.
    Especially if it's against the Dogturds, then their fans will REALLY run riot.
  11. mbe

    mbe Active Member

    Northern Beaches
    +214 / 10
    Now that Harrigan has admitted that the refs made a mistake with the JT/ Graham strip how can the cows complain anymore.We were robbed too as we could have scored a try in the next set of six instead of conceding one. Boo hoo hoo Cowboys.
  12. Arko-admirer

    Arko-admirer Active Member

    +61 / 0
    I meant I thought Jorge might have dropped it, rather than "grounded" it in our in goal.

    As for the try, I thought it was a try or at least totally giveable
  13. winnyason

    winnyason Well-Known Member

    +504 / 32
    had enough join this group if you may

Share This Page