Not sure how to feel tbh. I mean diving at the legs of a kicker has been penalised for a while now, whilst this wasn't intentionally trying to dive at the legs or take the kicker down, you can see the logic of why they gave it. Not sure about the mark that was given though, don't think there was an explanation given for that unless I missed it?
Fuck the media blew this up. controversial game aside, It's not the first time fans have thrown bottles and cunts got king hit at a footy game
I've been copping it from dogs fans since it occurred. I like the late torso hits on a kicker as much as anyone but you deserve every punishment you get when you attack the lower legs of a vulnerable kicker its reckless and dangerous. How many more tony Caine's etc do we need to have. As has been pointed out already no one tries IMO to head high people on purpose yet everyone can handle the fact that will result in at very least a penalty and it occurs every single round practically. No ones fault but Klemmer that he mouthed off to the ref and got his just deserts. The fact your captain went off his melon and Reynolds started throwing kicking tees like an impetulant child only stoked a fire to have the animals think its OK to attack the referees and coward punch the opposing supporter. I'm glad my club doesn't harbour those kind of oxygen thieves.
This is the same club who had public transport staff threatening to boycott after game services because some of your fans can't handle losing back in 07. So far as I can tell they're still unable to act like respectable human beings
You can't be fucking serious. Media should be blowing this up more. We want to promote the game to families and children and this is what the Dogs fans produce.
Knew about the bottling but didn't know someone else got king hit. What a pack of cunts. Though it is a minority that always has to spoil it for everyone else with their stupidity.
Doesnt answer my question. I essentially said it may be in the rules but how does it make sense? Why did they decide that would be the rule?
As I said because it's an act of scoring points. It's the same punishment for any other foul play during the act of scoring points.
What besides 8 point tries or penalty tries is an example? Those make sense because you eithrr have no position the ball was put down or the penalty is a second kick at goal. This you havd a spit the same way as if hed put a bomb up.
Read my post above yours. If Reynolds had managed to successfully kick that field goal he still would have gotten a penalty kick from right in front and they would've been up by 2 if he kicked it. Just like when there is foul play in the act of scoring a try, no matter what the outcome of the kick at goal from the try, the player gets a penalty from right in front. The explanation is simple, he's not putting a bomb up or a kick up, he is attempting to score points
