2012 State Of Origin Game 3, Brisbane

Discussion in 'Matches' started by Maroon_Faithful, Jul 4, 2012.

  1. Farhat AM Farhat

    Carney made that decision because he saw that hannant had ran past hodges and therefore knew Hodges had to pass it.
  2. Old Mate M Perry

    This is what I'm unsure about.

    Different scenario here, say Hodges ran behind a decoy and for whatever reason every single defender split and ran to the sideline so there was absolutely nobody in Hodges way, are you saying he then HAS to pass it regardless that there isn't a defender in sight?
  3. Pretzel P Retzel

    Nah, Carney assumed Hodges was going to pass it and ran out of the line. Pretty sure Scott was there as well anyway and should have made the tackle. Going on memory Farah could have assisted too if he didn't stop playing, would really like some video of it to go up though.

    However, Harrigan said that last year a change was made to the interpretation of the rule and that Clark made the correct call.

    "The change was that: If in the opinion of the referee or video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of a try then a try will be awarded," Harrigan told the NRL website.

    "The reason for this change was that the obstruction rule had become so technical that tries were being disallowed when they shouldn't have been.

    "There remain a number of indicators that referees should look for in determining if an obstruction has taken place but the over-riding one they must consider is whether a player actually had an effect on the try being scored.

    "In this case both video referees believed that Scott wasn't impeded by Ben Hannant's decoy run and that Farah had minimal contact which did not alter the outcome.

    "Both video referees formed the view therefore that the player did not have an effect on the scoring of the try. Having reviewed the footage we support that position."
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2012
  4. Julian BJ Taylor

    Yes, otherwise he has run behind his own player who he dummies to and it's a shepherd
  5. Wilson SB Wilson

    There is seldom a time where Bill Harrigon comes out and says a ref got it wrong. When the do almost all the time.
  6. Magic AJ Parker

    I can't wait to hear Harrigan try and defend the refs decision not to send Tate to the bin after his dog shot.

    Surely he wont see the year out.
  7. Cribbage RG Cribb

    Yeah it's really annoying tbh. We understand that referees are human and get it wrong sometimes; we can all accept that. Even when it costs us Origin. But Harrigan actually makes their jobs harder by continually running interference and creating ridiculous precedents.
  8. Pretzel P Retzel

    We'll see what Trent Barrett reports.
  9. Maroon_Faithful M Faithful

    Both his and Hayne's were dog shots, no doubt. Totally different to Jennings's though. It was infinitely worse and much more dangerous. Tate's and Hayne's weren't haymakers and they weren't to the back of the head.
  10. Maroon_Faithful M Faithful

    I think you're wrong :p.

    Nah, which one are you talking about?
  11. Magic AJ Parker

    Why'd you quote me?
  12. Maroon_Faithful M Faithful

    Seemed like you were implying he should've been binned for it...
  13. Cribbage RG Cribb

    I found Tate's punch hilarious more than anything. Just can't imagine why, after he ended up in that position, he'd think "Oh that's Bird's head. Yep, gonna punch it." He couldn't even get any momentum into the punch; it was such a token effort.
  14. Magic AJ Parker

    I did, you didn't seem imply otherwise so again not sure why you quoted me with some dribble about Hayne.
  15. Maroon_Faithful M Faithful

    Cunt was pissed off. High shot, then Grant absolutely ground his forearm/elbow on Tate's face/eye socket. And then Gallen tried to smash him at marker. Must've thought, fuck this...

    Gallen shaping up, throwing a punch that missed and falling on his arse in the process was fucking hilarious.:laugh:
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2012
  16. Maroon_Faithful M Faithful

    :blink:...I was saying Hayne and Tate shouldn't have been binned, and Jennings's should have. Thought it was pretty clear that's what I was implying.
  17. Magic AJ Parker

    Video ref never got the chance to rule on Hayne's case so I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about consistency amongst the refs not what the ruling should have been on Hayne.

    Tate dog shotted Bird on the ground. Fights are fine so long as there's no dog acts in which case they deserve to go for 10.

    Dog acts and professional fouls are the only no no's in origin afaic and Tate's punch certainly falls in the former.

    I'm surprised you of all people are justifying rulings on the potentia of injury and not the act/outcome given your prior stances on suspensions.

    I'd hold the same opinion if Hayne's act was seen by the video ref, was also never against the sending off of Jennings.
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2012
  18. Maroon_Faithful M Faithful

    I judge these on the intent, the nature and the potential for injury.

    Glad to hear it. If you think all three should've been binned then I can certainly understand where you're coming from. I just happen to think Jennings's was particularly bad and deserved to be binned. The other two were poor form but not bin-worthy IMO.
  19. Boobidy BJ Gemmell

    And you still think he deserved to be binned?
  20. Alec AD Funkotron

    It was such a little bitch punch that he should have been binned just for that. But I guess Hayne has already set the precedent for it, so they wanted to stay consistent.

Share This Page