tommy
International Rep
- Jun 5, 2015
- 14,768
- 15,953
Bring back Tom Waterhouse as a commentator?
2026 NRL General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter bb_gun
- Start date
- Sep 6, 2013
- 65,907
- 84,150
It wasn't the NRL that got rid of it, Sportsbet don't want to do it anymore- Canterbury and Souths are sponsored by anti-gambling. Which goes against Sportsbet's morals.
- Sep 6, 2013
- 65,907
- 84,150
Man watching the 'highlights' for the games this round just continues to confirm to me this game is in the worst state its ever been.
We're getting AFL scores now but without the fun of AFL and the rules are insane. Every single new rule seems to just be introduced so referees can pick and choose when to use them in order to manufacture close results, ala Gibs on Friday night.
Mark Alphabet bats the ball back clearly one handed to DCE but that's a try even though the stupid new rule says it has to be two hands. Crichton hits Trindall in the head because Trindall's head is literally 3cm off the ground as he is diving at the ball.
Players are getting soft tissue injuries left, right and centre because the game is too fast.
Teams are not being officiated consistently.
Steve Roach is commentating.
Clear knock ons are being calls knock backs.
I don't remember the last time a penalty wasn't blown for a player going down touching his head but then not having to go off for a HIA which is what they said would happen so there is no incentive for players not to do it.
Some tries are being called off for tunnelling but this is happening almost every jump and if a team is behind, it never gets called. Weren't they trying to stop the game being dangerous?
Players are getting sinbinned for tackles other players are not even getting penalised for. Players are getting suspended for tackles other players are being let off for.
I don't care what they say about ratings, I don't believe it because the game is unwatchable right now unless your team is playing. It is impossible to explain to prospective fans because the rules are changing sometimes in game.
How do you explain to someone unfamiliar with the game that there the basic rules are there are six tackles...but sometimes not. Sometimes, there are actually 10-12 tackles but sometimes maybe not because there might be a penalty but maybe not.
That's a penalty for a head high but maybe a six again instead but maybe not but it also might be overturned on a captain's challenge but maybe not. Yeah that's a clear no try for an obstruction as you can see but the video ref might decide its not but maybe it is or he/she might just decide its all too hard and call it inconclusive which means its play on but maybe not.
Milking is when a player is faking it for a penalty but that player right there obviously milking it is getting a penalty because he is faking that its fake and he might have a career threatening injury but probably more likely he'll be sprinting in the next play but the other guy is sinbinned because this player held his head but maybe not.
There's six interchanges but maybe not. See, that guy has been knocked out so he has to go off for 15 minutes but because he's a smaller, faster guy, maybe not. The other guy has a leg injury but because the trainer tapped his head, its a free interchange. The other guy is just going off for a free interchange because he is a bigger guy, plays for Melbourne and he is due for a break because he's getting tired, so this gives them a free interchange other teams don't get.
Oh and that guy was looking at the ball but because the video ref thought the player who was catching it is actually 20 feet tall, the other guy was clearly actually looking into the player's eyes and scared the player and because if this is a try, this would mean the game's over, so he's going to cancel the try out to try and manufacture a close finish.
And then when the person says, 'So you understand this and like it?' You say, well I used to, its kinda stupid now.
We're getting AFL scores now but without the fun of AFL and the rules are insane. Every single new rule seems to just be introduced so referees can pick and choose when to use them in order to manufacture close results, ala Gibs on Friday night.
Mark Alphabet bats the ball back clearly one handed to DCE but that's a try even though the stupid new rule says it has to be two hands. Crichton hits Trindall in the head because Trindall's head is literally 3cm off the ground as he is diving at the ball.
Players are getting soft tissue injuries left, right and centre because the game is too fast.
Teams are not being officiated consistently.
Steve Roach is commentating.
Clear knock ons are being calls knock backs.
I don't remember the last time a penalty wasn't blown for a player going down touching his head but then not having to go off for a HIA which is what they said would happen so there is no incentive for players not to do it.
Some tries are being called off for tunnelling but this is happening almost every jump and if a team is behind, it never gets called. Weren't they trying to stop the game being dangerous?
Players are getting sinbinned for tackles other players are not even getting penalised for. Players are getting suspended for tackles other players are being let off for.
I don't care what they say about ratings, I don't believe it because the game is unwatchable right now unless your team is playing. It is impossible to explain to prospective fans because the rules are changing sometimes in game.
How do you explain to someone unfamiliar with the game that there the basic rules are there are six tackles...but sometimes not. Sometimes, there are actually 10-12 tackles but sometimes maybe not because there might be a penalty but maybe not.
That's a penalty for a head high but maybe a six again instead but maybe not but it also might be overturned on a captain's challenge but maybe not. Yeah that's a clear no try for an obstruction as you can see but the video ref might decide its not but maybe it is or he/she might just decide its all too hard and call it inconclusive which means its play on but maybe not.
Milking is when a player is faking it for a penalty but that player right there obviously milking it is getting a penalty because he is faking that its fake and he might have a career threatening injury but probably more likely he'll be sprinting in the next play but the other guy is sinbinned because this player held his head but maybe not.
There's six interchanges but maybe not. See, that guy has been knocked out so he has to go off for 15 minutes but because he's a smaller, faster guy, maybe not. The other guy has a leg injury but because the trainer tapped his head, its a free interchange. The other guy is just going off for a free interchange because he is a bigger guy, plays for Melbourne and he is due for a break because he's getting tired, so this gives them a free interchange other teams don't get.
Oh and that guy was looking at the ball but because the video ref thought the player who was catching it is actually 20 feet tall, the other guy was clearly actually looking into the player's eyes and scared the player and because if this is a try, this would mean the game's over, so he's going to cancel the try out to try and manufacture a close finish.
And then when the person says, 'So you understand this and like it?' You say, well I used to, its kinda stupid now.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 38,233
- 48,920
So Annesley has confirmed that the Drinkwater and Toia disrupter rulings were wrong... but as expected there is no mention of worst ruling of the lot, Shibasaki who unlike the other two (who made contact with the ball catchers), was no where near the ball catcher
the NRL spin doctor said:
“There was contact in those incidents, but in our view they were both in a genuine contest,” he said.
“The interpretation that was applied in those two incidents was wrong. We will address that and on Monday go through all of the incidents of kick contests from the weekend.
“The rule is not changing. We just need to make sure that we have a far greater standard of consistency from the match officials.
“The referees’ coaching staff will attempt to make sure that we get a consistent standard of how these rules apply.”
Annesley said the rule would not be scrapped, but head office wanted more consistency in its application from match officials.
“The rule is correct but we need to get greater consistency in the interpretation,” he said.
“In recent seasons we’ve seen a trend developing and getting worse where kick-chasers come flying through at high velocity, pretend to be in the contest and interfere with a defending player who’s trying to catch the ball.
“There’s a valid reason for the rule but it’s about getting the balance right.
“No one is suggesting that there can’t be contact in a contest and in most occasions there will be contact. It just has to be a fair contest.
“We can never go back to a free-for-all where catchers are not even getting into the contest. We can never say ‘anything goes’ in a kick contest.
“We have to make sure it’s a fair contest.”
There have been suggestions players are not allowed to use one hand to bat the ball back in aerial contests, but Annesley said that wasn’t the case.
“There’s no rule that says you can’t knock the ball back with one hand,” he said.
“If a player can knock the ball back with one hand and not interfere with a defender, that’s perfectly fine.
“If they win the contest and they haven’t interfered with anyone, they can do whatever they want. There’s no ban on one-handed contact.
“It comes down to whether it’s a fair contest and a general indicator of that is usually players going up for the ball at the same time with both arms trying to catch the ball.
“When we discussed this with six of the game’s leading coaches in the off-season, we arrived at an indicator for something that’s not a fair contest being a player who comes flying through at high velocity with no intention other than knocking the ball backwards. They’re not trying to catch it.
“There’s been a perception out there that there’s a ban on one-handed contact and that’s not the case. It all depends on what happens in that contest.
“Every contest will be slightly different and there has to be a judgement call made on it. In some cases, we won’t all agree with that judgement.”
the NRL spin doctor said:
“There was contact in those incidents, but in our view they were both in a genuine contest,” he said.
“The interpretation that was applied in those two incidents was wrong. We will address that and on Monday go through all of the incidents of kick contests from the weekend.
“The rule is not changing. We just need to make sure that we have a far greater standard of consistency from the match officials.
“The referees’ coaching staff will attempt to make sure that we get a consistent standard of how these rules apply.”
Annesley said the rule would not be scrapped, but head office wanted more consistency in its application from match officials.
“The rule is correct but we need to get greater consistency in the interpretation,” he said.
“In recent seasons we’ve seen a trend developing and getting worse where kick-chasers come flying through at high velocity, pretend to be in the contest and interfere with a defending player who’s trying to catch the ball.
“There’s a valid reason for the rule but it’s about getting the balance right.
“No one is suggesting that there can’t be contact in a contest and in most occasions there will be contact. It just has to be a fair contest.
“We can never go back to a free-for-all where catchers are not even getting into the contest. We can never say ‘anything goes’ in a kick contest.
“We have to make sure it’s a fair contest.”
There have been suggestions players are not allowed to use one hand to bat the ball back in aerial contests, but Annesley said that wasn’t the case.
“There’s no rule that says you can’t knock the ball back with one hand,” he said.
“If a player can knock the ball back with one hand and not interfere with a defender, that’s perfectly fine.
“If they win the contest and they haven’t interfered with anyone, they can do whatever they want. There’s no ban on one-handed contact.
“It comes down to whether it’s a fair contest and a general indicator of that is usually players going up for the ball at the same time with both arms trying to catch the ball.
“When we discussed this with six of the game’s leading coaches in the off-season, we arrived at an indicator for something that’s not a fair contest being a player who comes flying through at high velocity with no intention other than knocking the ball backwards. They’re not trying to catch it.
“There’s been a perception out there that there’s a ban on one-handed contact and that’s not the case. It all depends on what happens in that contest.
“Every contest will be slightly different and there has to be a judgement call made on it. In some cases, we won’t all agree with that judgement.”
- Mar 4, 2008
- 38,233
- 48,920
Probably couldn't figure out how to spin it into a correct decision, so is ignoring it hoping everyone forgets.
Which is made easier for him since the media aren't mentioning it either
- Sep 6, 2013
- 65,907
- 84,150
And everyone except Broncs fans will forget because no one else is watching this trash. Why would you? The NRL is one of the world sports to watch for a neutral going around right now.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 33,952
- 29,696
I'll save you the hassle.
'In our view, Drinkwater and Toia were genuinely competing for the ball. Meanwhile if we turn our attention to Shibasaki you can see in the footage that he only has eyes on Chester and is only looking to impede the Chester's chances of catching the ball. He isn't there to gain possession'.
It irks me. I remember a Monday Night game where Jarryd Hayne took an obvious dive while Brisbane had all the momentum. The Broncos called Hayne out and instead of doing something about it, they charged Ennis on a kick chase.
'In our view, Drinkwater and Toia were genuinely competing for the ball. Meanwhile if we turn our attention to Shibasaki you can see in the footage that he only has eyes on Chester and is only looking to impede the Chester's chances of catching the ball. He isn't there to gain possession'.
It irks me. I remember a Monday Night game where Jarryd Hayne took an obvious dive while Brisbane had all the momentum. The Broncos called Hayne out and instead of doing something about it, they charged Ennis on a kick chase.
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,570
- 52,024
So the new meta will just be "do what dogs did to penrith".
Sprint into the contest and just jump into the catcher, but keep your hands lower than theirs because then they'll touch it first and knock it on.
JayPee
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 16, 2017
- 8,786
- 5,044
It has been mentioned on every ****ing rugby league show known to man over the weekend and people complaining how it was a bullshit decision. Stop lying.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 38,233
- 48,920
who watches that trash.
JayPee
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 16, 2017
- 8,786
- 5,044
You are the one that wants validation by media and people to talk about it and mention said grievance. Im telling you all weekend since it happened the whole rugby league world has been blowing up about it.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 38,233
- 48,920
not in the print media
- Mar 26, 2008
- 9,701
- 10,178
I just do not understand how the drinky decision can be disputed. AFAIK that is the exact reason why the rule was changed. Players became experts at pretending to compete while contacting the defender in the air.
Drinky jumps then turns away from the contest and makes contact in the air, hes not looking at the ball or trying to catch it.
I've heard commentators saying he was trying to protect himself with no intent, which I'm happy to accept, but it doesn't change what actually happened.
Drinky jumps then turns away from the contest and makes contact in the air, hes not looking at the ball or trying to catch it.
I've heard commentators saying he was trying to protect himself with no intent, which I'm happy to accept, but it doesn't change what actually happened.
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,570
- 52,024
Brandy and Ginane set the narrative on Friday night... the rest of their Sydney mates have just been carrying it through... Analsley is too much of a pussy to put up a fight so just comes out with a "whatever you guys said is correct and I'm only here because Robbo said in a presser that I need to make a statement"
