Raiders still think they were robbed y matais try

[Dan]

So i was told that manly shouldnt have won because Witts tackle was high.

Well I have looked at it over and over again an I can see that the player has clearly fallen to the right and ducked his head, meaning its not a high shot.

they disagree

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/viewtopic.php?p=1355630#1355630

Come on eagles lets show them why we are the most hated club

 

[Stevie]

Also if you look Closely Gaffa Drops the Ball before Witt hits him , and wasnt the Score 36 -14 not like it was only a 1 try Margin , Another Thing Raiders Must have got away with at least 3 forward Passes , Even the try Adamson scored the pass was Flat

 

[Fluffy]

I watch the replay a few times and everytime i thought that the majority of the contact was with the should - he might have clipped the jaw on a downwards motion with his upper forearm but there was nothing in it.

Are you sure its not just laurey daily posting??

 

[Stevie]

The Commentary with Daley and Smith makes me want to Puke , Its Disgraceful Not only does Smith Agree with Everything Big Nose Says , But half the time he gets the players wrong , I always thought Commentators were supposed to Be Impartial

 

[Fluffy]

If they were doing my job they would be in court on misconduct charges they are that bad at their job.

put my 10 cents worth in at LU

 

[fLIP]

Smiths comment when the Raders score their second half try to draw close to manly:

Smith: "So just how important was that Video Ref decision now?"

Laurey: "Your right" "It was a terrible decision"

 

[Stevie]

Mind you its probably a Bit hard for Smith To see whats going on, when he has his head between Daleys legs :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Stevie]

Photo Proof look where the ball is Even Before Witt Touches Gaffa


<img src='http://users.tpg.com.au/creswell/1.jpg' alt='' style='vertical-align:middle; border:0' />

<img src='http://users.tpg.com.au/creswell/2.jpg' alt='' style='vertical-align:middle; border:0' />
<img src='http://users.tpg.com.au/creswell/3.jpg' alt='' style='vertical-align:middle; border:0' />
<img src='http://users.tpg.com.au/creswell/4.jpg' alt='' style='vertical-align:middle; border:0' />

Someone Email this to Big Nose Daley please

 

[Dan]

not only that, ou cant tell me he didnt fall into Witts arm.

High my friggin right leg

 

[c_eagle]

Was the tackle high? Heck yes it was. Are you guys really that one eyed?

The definition of a high tackle has no flexibility. If contact is made with the head, it's a penalty. The whole, "initial contact," and "intention" argument is left up to the officials to make in terms of the consequences beyond a penalty (send off, suspension, etc.)

We were lucky, of course, but we were also unlucky not to score earlier. These things even out.

<span class='smallblacktext'>[ Edited Fri Apr 22 2005, 03:54PM ]</span>

 

[fLIP]

The fact is it was un-intentional and the player was falling into the arm is the reason it was awarded. Witt was cautioned from memory too keep them down but why disallow a try when the error was not caused by the height of the tackle or the tackles fault.

 

[fLIP]

A canberra was whinging about the rain up here today and how he won't be going to the game and how th crowd will only be 20 000 and a moderator replies:

Paullyboy stop whinging you skirt. No suprise you are a Raiders fan.

 

[c_eagle]

The fact is it was un-intentional and the player was falling into the arm is the reason it was awarded. Witt was cautioned from memory too keep them down but why disallow a try when the error was not caused by the height of the tackle or the tackles fault.

Once again, you're missing the point. There's no capacity to rule on intent in the definition of a high tackle. Did Witt make contact with the head or neck of the opposing player? Yes. Does it matter that the ball had left already? No.

It was an incorrect decision not to award a penalty, it's pretty clear cut.

 

[Dan]

Gold

 

[Fluffy]

He lost the ball and they were up in arms about it being caused by the hit to the head which didnt warrant any penalty.

 

[Fluffy]

The post is now deleted.

Also i bet it was the same guys going on about intent when hoppa did his final dance

 

[Dan]

Actually the post will be making a return. Willow will be cleaning it up and returning it to the forum.

PK is a top bloke by the way

 

[Stevie]

C Eagle your missing the Point completley , The Raiders Mob are complaining he Dropped the ball
Because of a High Tackle , as you can see its not the Case , also Dont judge the tackle from that Photo , it wasnt that high at all , ive looked at it frame by Frame have you ???

 

[c_eagle]

C Eagle your missing the Point completley , The Raiders Mob are complaining he Dropped the ball
Because of a High Tackle , as you can see its not the Case , also Dont judge the tackle from that Photo , it wasnt that high at all , ive looked at it frame by Frame have you ???

A No Try should have been the decision, I agree with Raiders fans. I don't care what you've seen, you just admitted that it was high, whether it wasn't "that" high or not is irrelivent. Yes, I know he dropped the ball before the high tackle but the high tackle can't be ignored.

 

[Fluffy]

So you want a penalty to be awarded every time there is contact with the head of the player in the tackle?

C it has to go that far to be fair.

See i would give up watching then as it would be like gridiron - i would watch union as it would be far more fluid.