RedOrDead
Charlie Fox (21)
The old saying of "playing the whistle" applies. The boys could have/should have/ would have chased but they heard the ref's whistle and stopped. What did you want them to do ?
You're right. It does apply. None of the Cranbrook boys except the 10 chased the Barker player who scored. The whistle wasn't blown until the Barker player was in the process of diving for the line. Cranbrook didn't play to the whistle. They didn't attempt to make the tackle in anticipation of an incorrect penalty call. They should be punished for not playing to the whistle.
We've already established, the school does not appoint refs and ass. refs for 1stXV games. Additionally... considering there has been a PLETHORA of false allegations towards Barker regarding cheating (even going as far as to suggest multiple players had earpieces concealed under headgear to communicate with the coach), my advice to you would be to take these allegations with 1/8 a grain of salt.Is the touchy the father of the player ? yes or no. If yes, very dumb to appoint him cause it opens this sort of debate.
If the penalty was awarded as originally done, then the Ref's decision is upheld and not overturned. End debate. The fact it was overturned makes the Ref look incompentant and weak causing debate.
I'm fine with your conclusion being the ref never should have overturned the decision (even if we all agree it should never have been a penalty in the first place). But the issue is it was. I don't know how we can be making this a "Barker cheated" thing... when Barker is the only party who is in the right in this scenario.