If your biggest criticism is they're taking extra time to make sure they get the right call, then you don't have much to complain about.View attachment 8343
That’s because it’s an elimination final, not a Round 14 in Wollongong against St George up 32-6 Andrew. High stakes.
I don't think it's cynical to play to the rules...he's moving to the ball with eyes only on the ball...he doesn't have to get out of the way....IDK that there's a better way for the game to officiate the bomb to make it a fair contest for players on either side.What Frizell did was absolutely cynical
Totally agree. I’m not much to talk about refs but I thought they did alright, out of the 3 ‘dubious’’ against Wahs, sure they could’ve got at least one (I thought the Friz one was the least dubious, he acted it perfectly - you cannot penalise perfection against the systemIf your biggest criticism is they're taking extra time to make sure they get the right call, then you don't have much to complain about.
Yeah Capewell was an animal for themNot saying he wasn't a huge part of our win, but I thought the Knights covered the Ponga HIA better than the Warriors covered the Tuaupiki HIA.
I also thought that Capewell was huge for them in the 2nd half, preventing a number of the Knights' breakaways that threatened points with desperate efforts, and Leka, even injured, is a special player. Glad our coach didn't build a game plan around Adam Pompey having a shocker last week.
I said as such re: doing it by the rules but Frizell has probably never contested a bomb like that in his career, and wasn't going to be much good at it this time either standing a metre or two away. He was looking at it the whole time, he knew he wasn't near catching it. He did a great job making himself an obstacle legally.I don't think it's cynical to play to the rules...he's moving to the ball with eyes only on the ball...he doesn't have to get out of the way....IDK that there's a better way for the game to officiate the bomb to make it a fair contest for players on either side.
this was my take on it too.View attachment 8343
That’s because it’s an elimination final, not a Round 14 in Wollongong against St George up 32-6 Andrew. High stakes.
Ponga's ankle tackle on him when he was on the rampage 10 metres from the try-line was an underrated huge moment. Have seen him just throw his body at an attacker in that situation and get bounced off plenty of times before. But went low and pulled off a classic grasscutter to chop him down. A try there would have won it for the Warriors.Yeah Capewell was an animal for them
Ponga's ankle tackle on him when he was on the rampage 10 metres from the try-line was an underrated huge moment. Have seen him just throw his body at an attacker in that situation and get bounced off plenty of times before. But went low and pulled off a classic grasscutter to chop him down. A try there would have won it for the Warriors.
My god their supporters are a bunch of whiney sacks of **** though.
Warriors had no issue with their blockers not being penalised last week either lolI don't think it's cynical to play to the rules...he's moving to the ball with eyes only on the ball...he doesn't have to get out of the way....IDK that there's a better way for the game to officiate the bomb to make it a fair contest for players on either side.
It's a small thing but that moment where the Wahs batted the ball back into Ponga over the dead ball line, with Kalyn already out of play - exactly the same thing happened on Saturday in the Roosters/Sharks game but it was a Roosters line drop out instead of 20m tap because apparently Gee hasn't read the rule book. That's not a judgement call, it's a black and white thing you can only get wrong if you don't understand the rule.For all the carry on about him I hope we get Klein in the next two games, much better than the alternative.
I think both those calls were right. The difference is the Roosters player caught the ball, playing at it. Ponga wasn't looking and it just rebounded off him, not played at.It's a small thing but that moment where the Wahs batted the ball back into Ponga over the dead ball line, with Kalyn already out of play - exactly the same thing happened on Saturday in the Roosters/Sharks game but it was a Roosters line drop out instead of 20m tap because apparently Gee hasn't read the rule book. That's not a judgement call, it's a black and white thing you can only get wrong if you don't understand the rule.
What Frizell did was absolutely cynical and I wouldn't have been blowing up if it was called, but he did as good a job at masking it as you could do.
Yeah Capewell was an animal for them
Changed the bolding emphasis here - I could be wrong and then it's serious egg on my face lol, but as I understand it the key point isn't whether Kalyn plays at the ball, it's whether the ball is still moving and/or has already gone over the dead ball line, with Kalyn already out.I think both those calls were right. The difference is the Roosters player caught the ball, playing at it. Ponga wasn't looking and it just rebounded off him, not played at.
Where the ball which is stationary in the field of play or the in-goal area comes in contact with a player in touch, touch in-goal or over the dead ball line, the ball is deemed to have been made dead by that player.
Should the ball, whilst in general play, be made dead by a player straddling, or over, their own dead ball line or touch in-goal line, play will re-start with a goal line drop-out (S8, Law 4(i)Page 19).
Page 21: https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/the-game/nrl-international-laws-of-the-game-2020.pdf