NON-Manly games: [Round 13, 2020]

[Bring back the.... Biff?]

Cmon warriors! Playing great now they ditched Kearney. He was never a good coach

 

[Will on the hill]

We have been smashed by some on these boards the past couple of weeks but perhaps these teams two teams are actually quite good. We know Penrith are but I may have underestimated NZ a bit.

The Warriors have looked a lot better since the players that didn't want to be here went home.

 

[Bring back the.... Biff?]

ANOTHEEEEEEEER LEG UP PENALTY

 

[Ranga]

ANOTHEEEEEEEER LEG UP PENALTY

Not just a leg up penalty, Chricton was never onside when he intercepted Hiku's pass at the other end! Gee they get rorted the warriors....

 

[mave]

Yep. Chrighton was metres offside.

 

[Will on the hill]

ANOTHEEEEEEEER LEG UP PENALTY

Katoa clearly offside.

 

[Will on the hill]

Seriously don't know how some of you still watch the game if you believe every call has a clandestine agenda behind it.

 

[Ranga]

Seriously don't know how some of you still watch the game if you believe every call has a clandestine agenda behind it.

I don't believe in a clandestine agenda. Just subconscious bias.

 

[ManEagle]

Seriously don't know how some of you still watch the game if you believe every call has a clandestine agenda behind it.

5g Conspiracist still use mobile phones

 

[Waz13]

Another bs call against the warriors. Can’t overturn that as his heel was touching simultaneous.

 

[HK_Eagle]

How the f%#k did they over-rule that? And then make thew Warriors drop out on top of it was just rubbing their face in it. That was disgraceful. Panfers are getting some bl00dy help over the line in this one.

 

[Bring back the.... Biff?]

Cmon warriors

 

[40 nil]

Currently hailing at BankWest

Unsuccessful in posting Instagram video

 

[Bring back the.... Biff?]

How the f%#k did they over-rule that? And then make thew Warriors drop out on top of it was just rubbing their face in it. That was disgraceful. Panfers are getting some bl00dy help over the line in this one.

Same as parra help from the get go

 

[StuBoot]

Another bs call against the warriors. Can’t overturn that as his heel was touching simultaneous.

Good call in my opinion.
He left the field of play and touched it a maybe smidge before his foot hit the ground.
He may have had his foot down when he “caught” it but you can’t say he was in goal prior to catching it.

 

[Waz13]

Drags v Parra the kit is a throwback to 1991. Man I loved early 90s Winfield cup, just couldn’t beat it. I wish we never changed last years jersey as well. Some other teams would do well to go back to those early 90s kit. And the badges too. I still like how Parra, drags, dogs knights still have those same emblems. I’d love to see us go back to our white early 90s badge. Can we rally the club for that? Anyway completely random post I know lol

 

[HK_Eagle]

Good call in my opinion.
He left the field of play and touched it a maybe smidge before his foot hit the ground.
He may have had his foot down when he “caught” it but you can’t say he was in goal prior to catching it.

Doesn't matter, that's not how the rule works. If he has a foot on the ground in goal when he catches it then it's caught in goal. We can argue whether it was a smidge before or after, but for the vidiot to over-rule that was arrogance personified. He had one look from an angle that was very misleading in terms of whether the foot was grounded or not. The subsequent extra shot angles that came through made it clear the vidiot had been premature.

And I should add that if the ref sent it up as caught from the field of play, I would have been fine with the decision. It was close either way. I was upset that the vidiot over-turned it when it wasn't that clear cut at all

 

[Bring back the.... Biff?]

Doesn't matter, that's not how the rule works. If he has a foot on the ground in goal when he catches it then it's caught in goal. We can argue whether it was a smidge before or after, but for the vidiot to over-rule that was arrogance personified. He had one look from an angle that was very misleading in terms of whether the foot was grounded or not. The subsequent extra shot angles that came through made it clear the vidiot had been premature.

We need you in the box big fella

 

[Waz13]

Good call in my opinion.
He left the field of play and touched it a maybe smidge before his foot hit the ground.
He may have had his foot down when he “caught” it but you can’t say he was in goal prior to catching it.

That’s not the rule tho. You need conclusive evidence to overturn. He took one look at the first angle and overturned it. I agree it was more in the panthers favor watching it. But there was enough doubt around the heel that it shouldn’t have been overturned imo.

 

[Waz13]

Doesn't matter, that's not how the rule works. If he has a foot on the ground in goal when he catches it then it's caught in goal. We can argue whether it was a smidge before or after, but for the vidiot to over-rule that was arrogance personified. He had one look from an angle that was very misleading in terms of whether the foot was grounded or not. The subsequent extra shot angles that came through made it clear the vidiot had been premature.

Beat me to it HK