Tweet
From SMH:
Scrum rebellion: Sheens, Finch face off over calls
Glenn Jackson
September 14, 2010
AS WHAT seemed like the entire rugby league world dissected what went on in the scrum which took Saturday night's epic final into extra time, Wests Tigers coach Tim Sheens was left asking one question: why was there a scrum in the first place?
Sheens argued yesterday the Tigers should have been playing the ball on zero tackles after Simon Dwyer's monster hit on Roosters forward Jared Waerea-Hargreaves. Dwyer regathered the ball after Waerea-Hargreaves lost control, and was subsequently tackled by two Roosters players. Time was called to a halt while Waerea-Hargreaves was tended to by medical staff, only for play to be restarted with a scrum - which ended with Frank-Paul Nuuausala miraculously pilfering the ball.
''There shouldn't have been a scrum in the first place,'' Sheens said. ''The call should have been play on. I think he [Waerea-Hargreaves] lost control of the ball before he hit the ground. He [Dwyer] picked it up for zero tackle - it was play on.''
Sheens said officials had admitted a mistake to him after the referees had ruled a scrum in extra time in the golden-point loss to South Sydney in round 22 - after Rabbitohs five-eighth John Sutton damaged his shoulder and lost control of the ball.
Referees' boss Robert Finch defended the decision, saying the officials had ruled that the tackle was complete before Waerea-Hargreaves had lost control of the ball.
''There was an injured player on the ground, and a tackle was complete,'' Finch said. ''Waerea-Hargreaves … lost the ball on the ground. I could show you a squillion other ones like that. It's a scrum every time. When the referee deems that the tackle is complete, he starts the game with a scrum.''
With Dwyer yesterday cleared of any illegality in the tackle, Sheens also maintained the contentious scrum should either have been repacked, or the Roosters should have been penalised.
''It was never packed correctly,'' Sheens said. ''The second-rower was never bound. Most scrums like that are repacked because they're always wanting to tidy them up.''
Finch, though, said the scrum was ''consistent with pretty much all the scrums in that game'' - and turned the heat back on to Tigers back-rower Chris Heighington, whose hesitation allowed Nuuausala to fall on the ball. ''The ball was fed in to the scrum by the hooker, they then pushed, and the ball comes out between the back-rower's feet. The ball is there for them … Heighington looked at it, and the opposing player fell on it. That's the way it is.''
While the Tigers were breathing easier after neither Dwyer nor Gareth Ellis were charged by the match review committee, Sheens still believes his side was wronged in several areas of the game. He said the decision to disallow an Ellis try after Benji Marshall was involved in a scuffle with Roosters half Mitchell Pearce was ''a very harsh decision''.
Finch said: ''It was a prior act of foul play - that's a penalty every day of the week.''
But Sheens maintained: ''Given the players were cuddling one another before the ref got to them … there was nothing in it. Compared to how the rest of the game was refereed - there was one penalty in 60 minutes, and that was for a kick-off which went dead on the full.''
Mr Sheens, just because your team received almost 70 more penalties than the roosters during the year, that does not entitle you to win every penalty count. Go to your room and have a cry. You are in denial that you are lucky the game went into extra time after JWH was head-highed.
Amazingly Finch did not apologise for the calls that went our way.
Scrum rebellion: Sheens, Finch face off over calls
Glenn Jackson
September 14, 2010
AS WHAT seemed like the entire rugby league world dissected what went on in the scrum which took Saturday night's epic final into extra time, Wests Tigers coach Tim Sheens was left asking one question: why was there a scrum in the first place?
Sheens argued yesterday the Tigers should have been playing the ball on zero tackles after Simon Dwyer's monster hit on Roosters forward Jared Waerea-Hargreaves. Dwyer regathered the ball after Waerea-Hargreaves lost control, and was subsequently tackled by two Roosters players. Time was called to a halt while Waerea-Hargreaves was tended to by medical staff, only for play to be restarted with a scrum - which ended with Frank-Paul Nuuausala miraculously pilfering the ball.
''There shouldn't have been a scrum in the first place,'' Sheens said. ''The call should have been play on. I think he [Waerea-Hargreaves] lost control of the ball before he hit the ground. He [Dwyer] picked it up for zero tackle - it was play on.''
Sheens said officials had admitted a mistake to him after the referees had ruled a scrum in extra time in the golden-point loss to South Sydney in round 22 - after Rabbitohs five-eighth John Sutton damaged his shoulder and lost control of the ball.
Referees' boss Robert Finch defended the decision, saying the officials had ruled that the tackle was complete before Waerea-Hargreaves had lost control of the ball.
''There was an injured player on the ground, and a tackle was complete,'' Finch said. ''Waerea-Hargreaves … lost the ball on the ground. I could show you a squillion other ones like that. It's a scrum every time. When the referee deems that the tackle is complete, he starts the game with a scrum.''
With Dwyer yesterday cleared of any illegality in the tackle, Sheens also maintained the contentious scrum should either have been repacked, or the Roosters should have been penalised.
''It was never packed correctly,'' Sheens said. ''The second-rower was never bound. Most scrums like that are repacked because they're always wanting to tidy them up.''
Finch, though, said the scrum was ''consistent with pretty much all the scrums in that game'' - and turned the heat back on to Tigers back-rower Chris Heighington, whose hesitation allowed Nuuausala to fall on the ball. ''The ball was fed in to the scrum by the hooker, they then pushed, and the ball comes out between the back-rower's feet. The ball is there for them … Heighington looked at it, and the opposing player fell on it. That's the way it is.''
While the Tigers were breathing easier after neither Dwyer nor Gareth Ellis were charged by the match review committee, Sheens still believes his side was wronged in several areas of the game. He said the decision to disallow an Ellis try after Benji Marshall was involved in a scuffle with Roosters half Mitchell Pearce was ''a very harsh decision''.
Finch said: ''It was a prior act of foul play - that's a penalty every day of the week.''
But Sheens maintained: ''Given the players were cuddling one another before the ref got to them … there was nothing in it. Compared to how the rest of the game was refereed - there was one penalty in 60 minutes, and that was for a kick-off which went dead on the full.''
Mr Sheens, just because your team received almost 70 more penalties than the roosters during the year, that does not entitle you to win every penalty count. Go to your room and have a cry. You are in denial that you are lucky the game went into extra time after JWH was head-highed.
Amazingly Finch did not apologise for the calls that went our way.
Comment