Liam Moore

[meast]

34 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I would agree that Liam Moore had a really good game last night on the whole, I thought he was effective and calm when dealing with situations and his explanations to players in stoppages and on the move was very good. Unfortunatley I had to leave the house with about 15 minutes to go so I didn't get to see the second sending off and only heard about it on Twitter. I watched the video with no sound on and for a moment thought it was the KR player who got the red but then remembered it was a FC player. I think the officials got that one wrong although Ive not heard the explanations but Parcell makes deliberate and forceful contact with the FC players head and there is also the question regarding a gouge. Personally I think that is a red for KR and sit the FC player for ten just to try and say retaliation is not acceptable. Other than that I were really impressed by the officials last night.

I partly agree, Parcell was an idiot and could and possibly should have had a red too, regardless of that, Sao raised his knees directly into an opponents head, twice, whether in frustration, or retaliation, you can't do that, we all know about the dangers and the clampdown on contact with the head, giving a bloke a yellow because someone did something to him is not the way to go.

It's pretty clear, there has to be no contact to the head, the ref had absolutely no choice, Sao did.

[Sports Prophet]

59 minutes ago, meast said:

Yes, because it would have got lost in the matchday thread.

Referee's get plenty of stick so why shouldn't they get praise when they do a good job, the coaches get praised, the players, the broadcasters, so why not referees?

Should we have a thread with each individual signing? or minute-by-minute details of what certain clubs are up to, or every time someone farts in the NRL?

No we shouldn’t, which is exactly my point, why would we be dedicating a single thread to an individual referee for doing, what I consider, the job he is being paid for. I expect referees to get decisions correct. Certainly the obvious ones. I don’t think they deserve any special praise for that. To me it’s like praising a player for a 6/10 performance. He only did what is expected of him.

So I think to have such a thread is unnecessary, especially when there was such a polarising decision at the end of the game.

[The Phantom Horseman]

I don't think there's anything wrong with praising referees, if only because it can help highlight what a difficult job they have, and it gets harder every year.

The amount of things they have to watch now on every play...is the defender's hand on the ball after he's called held, is the defender slowing the PTB down, has the ball-carrier moved off the mark, does he make a genuine attempt to play the ball, have the markers edged left or right, all this whilst keeping an eye (with the help of the touch judges) on offside, whether there's a man down needing a HIA etc...then constantly checking where the play is in case there's a 40-20 or even 20-40...and now if there is interference at the PTB, instantly making the right decision to call a penalty (if inside the 40) and thus blowing his whistle, or waving 6 again if outside the 40.

Unlike a lot of RL fans who seem constantly amazed at how bad the officials are, I'm constantly amazed at how good they are. I think it's an incredibly hard job at the speed the modern game is played and any appreciation of that fact is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I realise this probably isn't a popular opinion!

[meast]

16 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

No we shouldn’t, which is exactly my point, why would we be dedicating a single thread to an individual referee for doing, what I consider, the job he is being paid for. I expect referees to get decisions correct. Certainly the obvious ones. I don’t think they deserve any special praise for that. To me it’s like praising a player for a 6/10 performance. He only did what is expected of him.

So I think to have such a thread is unnecessary, especially when there was such a polarising decision at the end of the game.

Special praise?

It's a topic for discussion on a discussion forum.

I look forward to you disagreeing with any forum topic then if that's the case?

I don't particularly have any vested interest in what the administrators of the NRL and Serbia etc are doing but I don't click on that discussion topic to post how I don't think it warrants it's own topic.

Have a great weekend.

[Sports Prophet]

31 minutes ago, meast said:

Special praise?

It's a topic for discussion on a discussion forum.

I look forward to you disagreeing with any forum topic then if that's the case?

I don't particularly have any vested interest in what the administrators of the NRL and Serbia etc are doing but I don't click on that discussion topic to post how I don't think it warrants it's own topic.

Have a great weekend.

And yourself. I’m sure there will be other matters we will agree and disagree on over the course of it. It’s just good to have proper matches to talk about again.

Edited February 16 by Sports Prophet

[dkw]

3 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

He was being illegally grabbed by the face and potentially eye gouged ....he was trying to get up and play the ball

An I to assume that a player on the ground having his face pulled and potentially eye gouged is supposed to calmly wait until this ends before getting up?

And then he kneed him in the face, in rl its always been the retaliator gets punished. Or do you think he should have just been given a telling off for kneeing someone in the head twice?

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

No we shouldn’t, which is exactly my point, why would we be dedicating a single thread to an individual referee for doing, what I consider, the job he is being paid for. I expect referees to get decisions correct. Certainly the obvious ones. I don’t think they deserve any special praise for that. To me it’s like praising a player for a 6/10 performance. He only did what is expected of him.

So I think to have such a thread is unnecessary, especially when there was such a polarising decision at the end of the game.

You know theres no rule saying you have to take part in every thread, right? You can easily just ignore this type and let those who want to discuss the topic get on with it. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

28 minutes ago, dkw said:

And then he kneed him in the face, in rl its always been the retaliator gets punished. Or do you think he should have just been given a telling off for kneeing someone in the head twice?

I think the potential eye gouging was so serious it meant he had no time to think and just had to protect himself from a potentially life changing injury 

I've had someone try to do it me in a game in my 20s(bottom of a union ruck)  and believe me I would have done anything to stop it....eye sight protection ranks up there alongside head injuries 

Obviously some one here disagree or have never had someone try to do it to them 

[dkw]

4 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I think the potential eye gouging was so serious it meant he had no time to think and just had to protect himself from a potentially life changing injury 

I've had someone try to do it me in a game in my 20s(bottom of a union ruck)  and believe me I would have done anything to stop it....eye sight protection ranks up there alongside head injuries 

 

I have no problem with him retaliating, its not a surprise in the circumstances. Its your seeming insistence that he should be immune to punishment because he was retaliating to something I simply cant understand, its just nonsensical.

 

Quote

Obviously some one here disagree or have never had someone try to do it to them 

Ah, is that where we are now, no one can comment on this unless its happened to them?

Edited February 16 by dkw

[Shaggy]

I didn't like him calling the players "mate" as he sent them off.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

37 minutes ago, dkw said:

I have no problem with him retaliating, its not a surprise in the circumstances. Its your seeming insistence that he should be immune to punishment because he was retaliating to something I simply cant understand, its just nonsensical.

 

Ah, is that where we are now, no one can comment on this unless its happened to them?

You have no problem with him retaliating but you also think he should be punished? 

Makes no sense ....you either think he should or shouldn't be able to defend a potential eye gouge

And yes.....having gone though an eye grab it does give me a better perspective than anyone who hasn't. People can still comment but they are less well informed to do so

I've also had someone bend 3 of fingers back deliberately in a ruck.l, broke two of  them.....believe me if I'd had a cricket bat I would have hit him with it never mind kick my legs out to stop it 

If someone goes in like a grub with a head shot or eye gouge then the immediate response of the victim should be considered self defence 

Edited February 16 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours ago, meast said:

I partly agree, Parcell was an idiot and could and possibly should have had a red too, regardless of that, Sao raised his knees directly into an opponents head, twice, whether in frustration, or retaliation, you can't do that, we all know about the dangers and the clampdown on contact with the head, giving a bloke a yellow because someone did something to him is not the way to go.

It's pretty clear, there has to be no contact to the head, the ref had absolutely no choice, Sao did.

Yeah I agree that Sao's act was deliberate and probably bore out of frustration, anger, red mist but the ref's were also briefed about mitigating circumstances in the run up to the season which could be interpreted as giving them the option to use a little bit of common sense on some decisions and some of that you could hear from the officials during the game, so in my opinion this was one of those times and there has to be a human element included somewhere along the line as I think its unfair to ask athletes to not respond to provocation but it is a very fine line.

Other than that though I thought the interpretations of the rules were good and it was a promising start in that respect despite the actual poor standard of the game itself.

[The Blues Ox]

43 minutes ago, Shaggy said:

I didn't like him calling the players "mate" as he sent them off.

Its a fine line but I think the tone that Liam Moore uses towards the players would make him a ref that you enjoyed having ref your matches.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

41 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Its a fine line but I think the tone that Liam Moore uses towards the players would make him a ref that you enjoyed having ref your matches.

The players seem to respect him ...I like him overall but maybe drop the 'mate' bit for me 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Shaggy said:

I didn't like him calling the players "mate" as he sent them off.

Yeah, I don't think refs calling players mate really helps when it comes to showing authority and demanding respect.

[Sports Prophet]

2 hours ago, dkw said:

You know theres no rule saying you have to take part in every thread, right? You can easily just ignore this type and let those who want to discuss the topic get on with it. 

I’m just calling out what I consider to be adulation. I think that’s acceptable.

I also welcome people to disagree with my sentiments.

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

You have no problem with him retaliating but you also think he should be punished? 

 

No, its entirely his decision if he chooses to retaliate, I understand why he did, though i think it was stupid to. 

As for the "self defence2 nonsense, who decides if thats acceptable, where's the line for what is or isnt allowed as self defence, what can you take an action against. thats literally the referees job to punish those actions. If a player takes it into his own hands then he has to accept the punishment by the ref within the rules/laws.

the fact you seem to think its entirely ok for a player to get retribution and not be punished is ridiculous.

[dkw]

25 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I’m just calling out what I consider to be adulation.

 

its not adulation though is it, its discussing a job well done by a referee, at no point has there been adulation.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

8 minutes ago, dkw said:

No, its entirely his decision if he chooses to retaliate, I understand why he did, though i think it was stupid to. 

As for the "self defence2 nonsense, who decides if thats acceptable, where's the line for what is or isnt allowed as self defence, what can you take an action against. thats literally the referees job to punish those actions. If a player takes it into his own hands then he has to accept the punishment by the ref within the rules/laws.

the fact you seem to think its entirely ok for a player to get retribution and not be punished is ridiculous.

I'll try a different way with you

Please genuinely answer this question 

'When Parcell grabbed Sau's face and potentially tried to eye gouge....what exactly should Sau have done? And I mean specifically in this exact incident. Please detail it for me' 

I might be wrong but so far you are hinting that your answer is this ....

'Sau should have stayed still and allowed Parcell to complete his face grab/potential eye grab or until the referee or someone else stopped the face grab/potential eye gouge' 

Is that right? If not then detail specifically what in this exact case should Sau have done with his hands/body/face/legs 

Alternatively don't answer this question and signal that you really don't have an argument to make 

Edited February 16 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[Stirlin]

15 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Yeah I know. My “not get mentioned” isn’t to be taken literally.

Sure, “ref did well” is a very worthy comment. “He got the big decisions correct” is equally a worthy comment and praise which I would consider to be a fully acceptable statement in a match thread.

What sits strange with me though is a specific need to give an individual referee a thread of his own for doing a good job after the very first game of the season.

I mean I’m only just starting to watch the second half now and he seems to have got everything right, but I expect him to get those decisions right. It’s like we are praising a dummy half with his own thread for executing a good passing game.

Put your spade away.

[dkw]

4 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I'll try a different way with you

Please genuinely answer this question 

'When Parcell grabbed Sau's face and potentially tried to eye gouge....what exactly should Sau have done? And I mean specifically in this exact incident. Please detail it for me' 

I might be wrong but so far you are hinting that your answer is this ....

'Sau should have stayed still and allowed Parcell to complete his face grab/potential eye grab or until the referee or someone else stopped the face grab/potential eye gouge' 

 

There`s a huge amount of things he could/should have done between "stayed still" and "knee him in the face twice", you accept that right?

He has a right to protect himself  on the pitch, he doesnt have a right to knee someone in the head without punishment. It really is that simple.

Edited February 16 by dkw

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

4 minutes ago, dkw said:

There`s a huge amount of things he could/should have done between "stayed still" and "knee him in the face twice", you accept that right?

He has a right to protect himself  on the pitch, he doesnt have a right to knee someone in the head without punishment. It really is that simple.

I hate to labour a point DKW but I said 'detail' 

What exactly would have worked physically to stop the face grab/potential eye gouge? 

I mean we know for a fact what Sau did do immediately stopped the face grab/ eye gouge....but what else would have been effective so quickly? 

If Sau hadn't got such a quick release from his face/eye could we be talking about a serious life changing eye injury right now?

[Sports Prophet]

7 hours ago, dkw said:

its not adulation though is it, its discussing a job well done by a referee, at no point has there been adulation.

Ok. 

Edited February 16 by Sports Prophet

[Click]

7 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I hate to labour a point DKW but I said 'detail' 

What exactly would have worked physically to stop the face grab/potential eye gouge? 

I mean we know for a fact what Sau did do immediately stopped the face grab/ eye gouge....but what else would have been effective so quickly? 

If Sau hadn't got such a quick release from his face/eye could we be talking about a serious life changing eye injury right now?

 

If you slow down the footage, Parcell's arm/hand wasn't near Sao's face when he decided to knee him in the face, especially the second attempted knee.

You are acting like Parcell had his fingers actively raking at his eyes when he kneed him, and he didn't. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

5 minutes ago, Click said:

 

If you slow down the footage, Parcell's arm/hand wasn't near Sao's face when he decided to knee him in the face, especially the second attempted knee.

You are acting like Parcell had his fingers actively raking at his eyes when he kneed him, and he didn't. 

You must be watching a different video to me...he clearly has his hands on his face when Sau kicks out to defend himself from being face grabbed/potentially eye gouged 

Amor says as much himself. Neither commentators seems to be able to see why it's a red card and both agree with me that is was simply self defence to try and get out of a very dangerous situation 

I'd say both of them know more about the game than us and it's clear what they think watching the exact same video slowed down 

Edited February 16 by Bedfordshire Bronco