Joined: Mar 09 2004 Posts: 33944 Location: watching out for low flying geese
ECT wrote:You? Yes, yes you would, for oxygen theft.
So England are the bank
Thurston is the bank robber
But the judge is an Aussie ref
He commits a crime , but doesn't get punished
See I've put it in an easy to understand way for you
He wasn't punished
kcab sfrawdder
Luck is a combination of preparation and opportunity
Just to avoid confusion Starbug is the username of Steven Pike
SOMEBODY SAID that it couldn’t be done But he with a chuckle replied That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried. So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin On his face. If he worried he hid it. He started to sing as he tackled the thing That couldn’t be done, and he did it!
Yes he was. It was a penalty try. How much simpler does that have to be. When a player is penalised for something that means he was punished. When a player holds a tackled player down he is penalised, when a player is in front of the referee at the 10m he is penalised, when a player hits a player high he is penalised. Get it? Thurston was not only penalised with a free kick, but with a try that was otherwise not scored. That's what a penalty try is. Same as in 2008, same as in 1999. And those two were far more clear cut too.
The fact you try to use some kind of legal analogy is hilarious. The fact you think it's apt is even funnier. Just admit you're having a whinge because England lost and you can't hack it so you're trying to come up with any excuse to make that failure appear less dismal. If it was the first time this had happened it might seem credible but when England loses year on year and poms make up nonsense to whinge about as an excuse it's somewhat transparent.
Joined: Mar 09 2004 Posts: 33944 Location: watching out for low flying geese
Yes when a player is held down , a penalty results , the team committing the foul loses field position and ball possession compared to what it would have done if it hadn't committed the foul , ie they are punished more than they would have done if they hadn't committed the foul
That's why it is called a punishment
The team that is fouled against gains yards and ball possession
If Thurston hadn't committed the foul , England would have scored and got 4 points and a conversion attempt
He did commit a foul , and England got 4 points and a conversion attempt
What did Australia ' lose ' ?
What did England gain ?
How simple do you need it to be ?
kcab sfrawdder
Luck is a combination of preparation and opportunity
Just to avoid confusion Starbug is the username of Steven Pike
SOMEBODY SAID that it couldn’t be done But he with a chuckle replied That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried. So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin On his face. If he worried he hid it. He started to sing as he tackled the thing That couldn’t be done, and he did it!
That's what a penalty try is. Suddenly now that England loses a game you want to have a big whinge about the rule. Which just proves what your motivation is. Boot on the other foot and you wouldn't make a peep. It's just yet another pom having another whinge about another loss because you're a sore loser. You'd think you would get used to it by now. England never scored the try. They never put it down. But they were given a try anyway. And it was one of the most dubious penalty tries ever too. But you still want to try and use it to claim England were hard done by, even though they lost by 22 points and in no way were the better side. Get over it. You lost. You deserved to lose. The rule has been around forever. It was applied in line with the book. Suck it up cry baby.
ECT wrote:That's what a penalty try is. Suddenly now that England loses a game you want to have a big whinge about the rule. Which just proves what your motivation is. Boot on the other foot and you wouldn't make a peep. It's just yet another pom having another whinge about another loss because you're a sore loser. You'd think you would get used to it by now. England never scored the try. They never put it down. But they were given a try anyway. And it was one of the most dubious penalty tries ever too. But you still want to try and use it to claim England were hard done by, even though they lost by 22 points and in no way were the better side. Get over it. You lost. You deserved to lose. The rule has been around forever. It was applied in line with the book. Suck it up cry baby.
Joined: Oct 30 2005 Posts: 6268 Location: Warrington UK
I dont get the big drama here.. Sending off? nahh no way, it was just a bad challenge but you see much much worse. Anyone that thinks it wasn't a penalty try should let me thump them round the chops and see if they can ground a ball.. it was as blatant as you can ever see and less controversial than the J Monaghan incident in WC08. Of course he would have scored and had Thurston not have hit high Lewis would have given away an 8 point try anyway.
As for the result and whingeing, none here.. beaten by a much better side although we were poor, really poor at times. Disappointing.
Short, precise and to the point. ECTs posts on this thread are redolent of a 6 yearold who's just won a game of 'pass the parcel' and is now whirling around the playground, oblivious of everything except the lollipop he's just won, shouting 'Ner-ner-na-ner-ner - look at me.. I won - you lost!'
Red card lol? A penalty try was a massively fortunate call in our favour, and you think it wasn't enough?
Maybe the code should split as it did in the past. From reading this forum and listening to British pundits and fans in relation to Aus and Kiwi pundits and fans, it's obvious the games are now too different. Aus League wants to go one way, English League wants to go the other. Trying to find a middle ground is only annoying both groups
British League fans are too soft for the type of League played down under. It's getting to the point where British League is just holding the Aussie and Kiwi game back, and frankly, embarrassing Rugby League with the tissue paper comfort softness.
I never thought I'd see the day where League is softer than Rugby, but when you look at the English games it's obvious that it's happening.
Soccer culture bullshit. Whinge about every call in every game. Every loving hand that dares stray above the shoulder, however soft, accidental or unavoidable, is met with a hissy fit by English commentators and fans who have too much estrogen in their body and are about as fruity as a skittles rainbow.
Cronus wrote:So Thurston's head shot had no effect on the act of Hall moving to ground the ball? And I also believe the act of knocking the attacker senseless with your knees (accidental or not) is illegal.
Well you would be wrong. It's never been illegal for someone to headbutt your legs
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum