morley let us down

[the grinch]

well ive just seen the bravest britain team for a long time but as usual dirty aidrian morley got himselve sent off i wouldnt let him play for us again EVER !!! we would have won that game im sure the aussies where ragged at the end and it was there for the taking long didnt play well and maybe we would be better picking another kicker for the next test. well done lads you did us proud morley hang your head in shame !!! :sly:

[DaveO]

the grinch posted:
well ive just seen the bravest britain team for a long time but as usual dirty aidrian morley got himselve sent off i wouldnt let him play for us again EVER !!! we would have won that game im sure the aussies where ragged at the end and it was there for the taking long didnt play well and maybe we would be better picking another kicker for the next test. well done lads you did us proud morley hang your head in shame !!! :sly:

Morely's "tackle" was a sending off offense but I doubt any but Ganson would have gone for the red card so early especially a tackle they didn't actually see and were relying on the touch judges opinion on. Don't forget Ganson has sin-binned players in his previouls two trips to the JJB for next to nothing. He is card-happy in the first few minutes of the game as he makes a lame attempt to assert his authority on the game.

In a similar veign do you think an Aussie ref would send an Aussie player off aster 12 seconds down-under? Not a chance.

We should still have won the game with 12 men though. The biggest problems were Long and Newton. Long can't tackle a paper bag and missed two one-on-ones that led to tries and Newton gave a penalty away when we had the Aussies right were we wanted them at the other end of the pitch. They came away and scored the winning try (having swotted Long off like a midge in the process).

Dave

[Alex the Warrior]

Maybe you're right that other referees wouldn't have sent off a player so early, but they'd have been wrong not to. If he'd stayed on and we'd won, the victory would've been tarnished by having a man on the field who had no place still being there.

I happen to believe that most high tackles are accidental or instinctive, but Morley's was a disgrace.

I too, was disappointed by Newton conceding that penalty. I'd like to see how many tries are scored from possession which has included a penalty. Don't players realise this?

Agree about Sean Long too. For a couple of seasons, i was haunted by the performances he was giving for Saints, but it's a long time since i've been concerned about how he plays. He can't kick and throws wild passes.

[robjoenz]

I doubt any but Ganson would have gone for the red card so early especially a tackle they didn't actually see and were relying on the touch judges opinion on.

In a similar veign do you think an Aussie ref would send an Aussie player off aster 12 seconds down-under? Not a chance.

For once I have to agree with Ganson, he made the right decision. Whether it happens in the 12th second or the 60th minute a tackle like that could break someone's jaw and he fully deserved to get sent off. I don't see the problem in relying on the touch judges, isn't that why they are there?

Long was atrocious, is he just there because he kicks for his club who happen to be regarded as a top four club? I bet Faz could convert more with his gammy leg.

[mrs_carney]

Morley was a bit enthusiastic in the tackle but that's his style. I think there were some other dubious tackles coming from australia on carney, long and horne which were as bad as morleys (but probably didnt hurt as much). He knows he did wrong as u saw him in the changing rooms! lets hope his meeting goes well tomorrow!
I agree long was abismal and i dont rate deacon apart from his kicking, but he would have been much better!

[DaveO]

Alex the Warrior posted:
Maybe you're right that other referees wouldn't have sent off a player so early, but they'd have been wrong not to. If he'd stayed on and we'd won, the victory would've been tarnished by having a man on the field who had no place still being there.

That is all very noble but the simple fact is an Aussie would not have walked in similar circumstances with an Aussie ref. Anderson requested a meeting with Ganson before the game to clarify his interpretation of the rules and I am sure he was very happy afterwards at how he did that. One nil to Anderson and one nil to Australia in the series.

We have not won a test series on home soil since 1959. I am pretty sure in that time there have been numerous incidents where Aussies should have walked and numerous injustices against GB.

Does anybody care if several Aussie victories were tarnished? No. All they care about is the fact the Aussies have not lost since 1959 not if they have won the games fair and square.

Over the years the Aussies have tried to have Aussies refs for games (and have succeeded for the most part) and have the game played to their rules (for example the subs rules) and will do and have done basically anything going to keep the ashes.

What do we do? Appoint Ganson who predicably went for a red card for Morely but not for the Aussie later on who also deserved to walk. Exactly true to his form.

We continue to shoot ourselves in the foot time and again in test football. We should make home advantage pay in exactly the way the Aussies do by appointing refs that suit our cause. They don't hesitate to do it and neither should we.

Dave

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:

For once I have to agree with Ganson, he made the right decision. Whether it happens in the 12th second or the 60th minute a tackle like that could break someone's jaw and he fully deserved to get sent off. I don't see the problem in relying on the touch judges, isn't that why they are there?

There lies the rub. If it had happened in the 60th minute he would not have sent the player off - as he didn't with the Aussie involved with Carney. Typical Ganson.

To send a player off so early in a game for something you did not see is (or was) unheard of. Penalty and on report is what should have been given. That is what on report is for. For things you are unshure of. If refs are to rely on touch judges then there is no need for the on-report system. How often have we seen touch judges come on and be almost lectured by the ref that they are in charge? A fine time to start taking notice of them this was.

Ganson was not being firm or making a courageous decision, he was just acting true to form. Any foul play in the first few minutes make an example. He does it all the time then gives up on that tack for the rest of the game.

Dave

[robjoenz]

DaveO posted:
There lies the rub. If it had happened in the 60th minute he would not have sent the player off - as he didn't with the Aussie involved with Carney. Typical Ganson.

To send a player off so early in a game for something you did not see is unheard of.

Regardless of whether an Aussie should have gone or the time at which it happened, Morley was right to get sent off. Whether it was malicious or not you can't swing arms in that high.

DaveO posted:
Penalty and on report is what should have been given. That is what on report is for. For things you are unsure of. If refs are to rely on touch judges then there is no need for the on-report system. How often have we seen touch judges come on and be almost lectured by the ref that they are in charge? A fine time to start taking notice of them this was.

Dave

On report has taken some slating and IMO if the touch judge sees something why shouldn't he be able to tell the ref? I know if one ref does it and another puts the player on report there is going to be inconsistancy, this needs addressing by Cummings.

If the touch judge can decide whether a player is in touch or not when a try is scored why can he not give his account of a sending off decision? Both have have the potential to turn a game so why give one responsibility without the other? Alternatively, use the video ref to call such decisions, but this would raise the question of whether the game is becoming too reliant on it (as well as removing such discusions from this message board).

Rob

[Fraggle]

I've said many times I wouldn't want Morley in a Wigan shirt, and he's proved why once again. Regardless of whether Ganson was right or wrong (and I think he was right, both with that decision and not penalising the Aussie who put the big hit on Horne later on which was a totally different 'tackle'), referees will keep making such decisions and teams can't cope with having a player who spends so much time off the field. His red card count is pretty high, and he hasn't noticably improved his discipline Down Under. Morley's 'tackle' was the worst of the game, although Newton ran him close and is lucky to escape punishment for his hit on Fitzgibbon with the Aussies not complaining quickly enough.

As for Long, what a waste of space. Can't kick, can't pass, what do you do? His kicks-in-play were pathetic, Newton's were more useful, whilst Connolly would have done a better job with the conversion attempts. Defensively he was also inept, twice being the last player passed by the try-scorer although perhaps the man-advantage the Aussies had made things too difficult for him.

Apart from those two, a superb performance by GB. The only criticism I have is that we attacked too often down the left despite Horne not being a known winger, Connolly was underused in attack and yet two tries came on the rare occasions the ball was moved to the right. A bit more balance and more discipline and there's no reason why we can't still win the series.

[OJ]

I think you've nailed it Dave O and totally agree with what you say. Morley's not had a lot of game time since coming back has he - 5 minutes against New Zealand A before he got a dead leg and a hundred yard sprint in the first test - lets hope he comes good for us in the end (assuming they don't penalise him anymore) It was a fierce tackle but so were many others and going back to the grand final for my money the tackle on Carney by Pryce was far worse and yet they ended up not being penalised in any way and get the ball back into the bargain. Just goes to show the difference in interpretations
:eh: