Re: Gilmour v Smith Fight : Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:01 pm  

gary numan wrote:

...does this now mean that if you are offended against you can then proceed to kick seven shades out of your opponent, safe in the knowledge that ultmately you will still get the penalty awarded to your team?

yes, as i understand it from talking to a friend who refs. however, you risk getting sent off. ie, gilmour could've got sent off but saints would still have had the penalty.

if he'd just sin binned them both there would likely have been no more nonsense. i don't agree with all this 'it was good reffing, it let the game flow etc...'

Re: Gilmour v Smith Fight : Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:12 pm  

richvanvoll wrote:

yes, as i understand it from talking to a friend who refs. however, you risk getting sent off. ie, gilmour could've got sent off but saints would still have had the penalty.

Yup, penalty is based on the first offence (or the first offence seen by the officials in this case). Any subsequent foul play is dealt with separately but unlike in Union the penalty cannot be reversed for retaliation.

Re: Gilmour v Smith Fight : Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:12 pm  

stusavage wrote:

How did Saints get a Penalty from that?

Gilmour pulls Smiths hair in the tackle, Smith re-acts, Gilmour swings about five punches most of them hitting the back of another Saints player. Saints get the penalty.

Discuss?

He didn't pull his hair, he had hold of his collar.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:30 pm  

listening to the highlights, there were complaints of a finger in smith's eye

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:42 pm  

hopie4ever wrote:

listening to the highlights, there were complaints of a finger in smith's eye

And Gilmour clearly tells the ref that he was bitten by Smith - I couldn't see either alleged offence on the replays but it would explain the OTT reaction from Gilmour, a player not known for chucking his fists around.