POST GAME [PREMIERS, 2025] Broncos vs Storm

Lockysillegitimatechild said:
Every now and then I listen tk the triple m final 10 minutes call of the grand final....

As I hear CONEHEAD RIDING the storm home with "that should have been a penalty/no sin bin/lucky" bs nothing picks my spirits up more knowing he is ****ING BURNING as that final siren goes off. So obviously faking being happy about the broncos winning with his gutless mates not questioning his loyalties lol
Click to expand...
Lol and him asking if the last tackle on Hughes was a "hip drop"... bro. Him and Graham look so sad at the siren.

 
Re watching the game again and the first set i find fascinating.

Melbourne were lucky they didn't give away a penalty before the ref actually finally awarded one. You could see he was giving them the benefit of the doubt before he judt couldn't let it keep going.

My question is, were the storm instructed to push the limits in the first set until they're penalised just to set the standard and see what they can get away with? Or was it just the energy of the first set and they took it a bit far? Because I would have thought the number 1 rule would be to get through the first set/s with no penalties and mistakes. So i would be suprised if it was a tactic to basically concede the first penalty in order to get a gauge on how he's going to referee the game.
 
Mightybroncs2k17 said:
Re watching the game again and the first set i find fascinating.

Melbourne were lucky they didn't give away a penalty before the ref actually finally awarded one. You could see he was giving them the benefit of the doubt before he judt couldn't let it keep going.

My question is, were the storm instructed to push the limits in the first set until they're penalised just to set the standard and see what they can get away with? Or was it just the energy of the first set and they took it a bit far? Because I would have thought the number 1 rule would be to get through the first set/s with no penalties and mistakes. So i would be suprised if it was a tactic to basically concede the first penalty in order to get a gauge on how he's going to referee the game.
Click to expand...
The 1st one. They were definitely testing the ref to see what thr standard would be.
 
Mightybroncs2k17 said:
Re watching the game again and the first set i find fascinating.

Melbourne were lucky they didn't give away a penalty before the ref actually finally awarded one. You could see he was giving them the benefit of the doubt before he judt couldn't let it keep going.

My question is, were the storm instructed to push the limits in the first set until they're penalised just to set the standard and see what they can get away with? Or was it just the energy of the first set and they took it a bit far? Because I would have thought the number 1 rule would be to get through the first set/s with no penalties and mistakes. So i would be suprised if it was a tactic to basically concede the first penalty in order to get a gauge on how he's going to referee the game.
Click to expand...
No doubt they were hoping to get a reffing display like the 2023 GF where the ref just didnt call anything, but that was blown up in the first set.

They mightve been a little worried at that point (if the ref was going to blow penalties all day), but I'm not sure their plan ever involved adjusting all that much.

After that first penalty they were only penalised 3 more times across the 80 and that includes Loiero shouldering Piaks in the face with 2mins to go.

The tactic across the NRL is just keep going and wait for the ref to stop calling penalties.

In this instance he stopped after 1... why? Well maybe it had something to do with us scoring on the next set and the ref cant have the score in the GF blow out... so no more help for you broncos.

The refs will barely ever send someone to the bin for repeat infringements so there are barely any deterrents to giving away penalties and taking the piss... especially when the positive side of it is the ref will just stop blowing penalties.
 
Mightybroncs2k17 said:
Re watching the game again and the first set i find fascinating.

Melbourne were lucky they didn't give away a penalty before the ref actually finally awarded one. You could see he was giving them the benefit of the doubt before he judt couldn't let it keep going.

My question is, were the storm instructed to push the limits in the first set until they're penalised just to set the standard and see what they can get away with? Or was it just the energy of the first set and they took it a bit far? Because I would have thought the number 1 rule would be to get through the first set/s with no penalties and mistakes. So i would be suprised if it was a tactic to basically concede the first penalty in order to get a gauge on how he's going to referee the game.
Click to expand...
The whole narrative leading up to the game was that Klein lost the chance to ref the GF because he awarded too many penalties in the semis, while Atkins "let the game flow".

The Storm came in thinking they could get away with murder, and it blew up in their faces immediately.
 
Santa said:
Joey: "If they get behind by 10, they won't run them down"...

That aged well.

Click to expand...

318d735fe62be4106d6de3a4e5ebe640
 
New Posts

Unread

Back
Top