Re: Matterson: "He hit him on the shoulder" : Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:08 am  

At the game it was way down the other end of the pitch and I thought that it looked like a simple ball steal. However, having seen it on tv I've got to say it was high.

For once, (and I'll be the first to admit that I have in the past) I'm not knocking Goldie as I thought he had a few twicthy moments but otherwise a cracking game, and I hope he doesn't take the final moment too much to heart!

Re: Matterson: "He hit him on the shoulder" : Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:31 am  

tropical1 wrote:

Well Mcgoldricks tackle can't have been that bad the rfl haven't even looked at it, on the other hand however Watkins has been cautioned for use of the knees on Rangi ... you must remember the incident ... you know the one we didn't even get a penalty for

McGoldrick's tackle wasn't that bad, and I don't think anyone's ever suggested it was. He was wrong-footed and reached and grabbed. Penalty, but penalty sufficient.

I think Watkins was probably harshly cautioned to be honest, if you watch in slow motion then you can see he made contact with the knees, but watched at full speed it happened rather quickly to be a pre-meditated act. I've seen worse when players are dropping on a ball on the ground most weeks to be fair.

Re: Matterson: "He hit him on the shoulder" : Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:32 am  

kt170496 wrote:

For an important game the rule should be any penalty like that should have gone to the
video ref ..I have seen the incident 4 times and my opinion it's wasn't a penalty

1) Wouldn't that make the game a thrilling spectacle. 2 officials had a decent view of it, why ask a third?

2) I've watched it a few times now. It was a penalty every single time I watched it. Are you sure you're watching the right incident?

Re: Matterson: "He hit him on the shoulder" : Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:26 pm  

Regarding Goldy's tackle... initial contact was clearly shoulder and then onto the ball carrying arm, at best another 50/50 call that went the 'big' club's way. But meh - it's done with. Move on. As someone said earlier we had chances to stop them getting in that position, chances to win the game in normal time... if this or if that counts for nothing now.

Regarding knees into players and similar actions - in my mind any penalty should reflect the potential for significant injury. It should have nothing to do with intent, which is far more subjective thing to decide upon. It shouldn't matter whether he meant it, only that he did it.

Re: Matterson: "He hit him on the shoulder" : Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:01 pm  

That would have been a penalty every week, in every game, regardless of who was playing and who the ref was; it was a lazy/tired arm in the face and was an easy decision for Bentham. It may be perceived as a harsh way for a tight and important game to end, but McGoldrick has to own that one - Bentham can sleep easy.

I can't help wondering if all the Cas fans arguing that a game should never be decided on a golden point felt the same way a few weeks ago as they were leaving BV, or if they've only arrived at this realisation since, hmmm, some time on Sunday afternoon?

Re: Matterson: "He hit him on the shoulder" : Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:18 pm  

bren2k wrote:

I can't help wondering if all the Cas fans arguing that a game should never be decided on a golden point felt the same way a few weeks ago as they were leaving BV, or if they've only arrived at this realisation since, hmmm, some time on Sunday afternoon?

Actually most fans thought it was a bad idea after the HALIFAX game nevermind the Wakey one.

Re: Matterson: "He hit him on the shoulder" : Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:29 pm  

kt170496 wrote:

For an important game the rule should be any penalty like that should have gone to the
video ref ..I have seen the incident 4 times and my opinion it's wasn't a penalty

Get a grip pal it was a penalty every day of the week in any game!

Re: Matterson: "He hit him on the shoulder" : Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:25 pm  

Watched it again and he didn't touch McGuire's face at all. Initial contact was on his shoulder and he dragged his arm down towards the ground diagonally, hence why the ball was displaced.

Re: Matterson: "He hit him on the shoulder" : Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:28 am  

Fully wrote:

Watched it again and he didn't touch McGuire's face at all. Initial contact was on his shoulder and he dragged his arm down towards the ground diagonally, hence why the ball was displaced.

Let it go...

Re: Matterson: "He hit him on the shoulder" : Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:56 am  

bren2k wrote:

That would have been a penalty every week, in every game, regardless of who was playing and who the ref was; it was a lazy/tired arm in the face and was an easy decision for Bentham. It may be perceived as a harsh way for a tight and important game to end, but McGoldrick has to own that one - Bentham can sleep easy.

I can't help wondering if all the Cas fans arguing that a game should never be decided on a golden point felt the same way a few weeks ago as they were leaving BV, or if they've only arrived at this realisation since, hmmm, some time on Sunday afternoon?

To be fair, we won and I still felt like golden point was both an anti-climax and a lottery. I'm glad we won, but I still wouldn't vote for golden point. I'd consider golden try, although given how Sunday's game panned out, we might still be there now.