VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Wed, October 04 2006, 12:01:36 GMT-10
Author: Gregory Pfeiffer
Subject: Re: Paul Simpkins
In reply to: Daniel 's message, "Paul Simpkins" on Tue, October 03 2006, 14:24:38 GMT-10

Unfortunately, I think Paul once again faltered under pressure.

The timing of the penalty for the Slater strip / no-strip was interesting, as Slater had made a deal of progress before the penalty was called. That seemed to indicate a lack of confidence in making the decision. Perhaps it was still opening jitters, with a big call to be made so early in the game? In this case, one has to ask why pay was not allowed to proceed to the next play-the-ball, and then stop to go back to the video ref to see if there was a strip or a lost ball, and how the game could be appropriately restarted. I think we can all agree there was no thought of a try being scored.

Further along, after Slater had made a break, he was "horse-shoed" in what was nearly a professional foul, and no penalty ensued. This was up near the 20m line, far side of the ground.

The Matt King "no-try" seemed quite clearly a no-try to me!

The obstruction incident may reflect a greater "malaise" within NRL referees to not make a decision and refer it to the Video ref. This is most common with obstruction calls in try-scoring movements. Further down the field, this gets pulled up with no hesitation. Because it is up the business end of the field, and looked to be developing into a try-scoring opportunity, the incident was allowed to let slide. Unfortunately, the tackle that followed brought an immediate penalty decision. It was a tough call, with a player clearly losing his feet and slipping before contact was made.

After many years of no mention of the referee in the GF (apart from some support) it seems we have slipped back to some of the good old days: still, I don't think it has descended to some of the great GF controversies of past eras, more a ripple on the pond by comparison.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

  • Re: Paul Simpkins -- Ben, Mon, October 09 2006, 0:11:51 GMT-10
    [ Contact Forum Admin ]

    Forum timezone: GMT+10
    VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
    Before posting please read our privacy policy.
    VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
    Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.