POST GAME Finals Week 1 - Broncos vs Titans

[Dexter]

[FONT=&amp]



[/FONT]Anyone who thinks we are paranoid about the likes of Rothfield and the Sydney media should see his tweets, here are just 2.
Nothing was tweeted after the Kasiano kick


Just sent this text to Todd Greenberg [FONT=&amp]


[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]





[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]SEVEN MATCH OFFICIALS - TWO REFS - TWO TOUCHIES - THREE IN BUNKER - MISS BLATANT KICK IN THE BACK #NRLBroncosTitans[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Sep 9, 2016, 9:23 PM[/FONT]

 

[Dash]

Seriously? They made 2 errors all match (one of which was repeated in the very next game and nobody batted an eyelid).

Of course one is too many when they go in favour of the Broncos.

 

[Rally Towel]

[FONT=&amp]



[/FONT]Anyone who thinks we are paranoid about the likes of Rothfield and the Sydney media should see his tweets, here are just 2.
Nothing was tweeted after the Kasiano kick


Just sent this text to Todd Greenberg [FONT=&amp]


[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]





[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]SEVEN MATCH OFFICIALS - TWO REFS - TWO TOUCHIES - THREE IN BUNKER - MISS BLATANT KICK IN THE BACK #NRLBroncosTitans[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Sep 9, 2016, 9:23 PM[/FONT]

No one takes Buzz seriously.

All he's doing here is trying to deflect some attention from the fact his beloved Sharkies are spluttering to a standstill.

 

[Rally Towel]

My thoughts from our game :

Titans competed hard as I thought they would. Losing Taylor hurt them, prior to they were running with purpose and getting a decent kick on the last to apply pressure. Once he left the field they were far less composed.

Regarding the refereeing, i didn't read too much into it live but upon review, can see where the conjecture comes into it. Wasn't aware of the ruling regarding Kahu's penalty try. At the time, I thought it was a pretty handy try saver, but if that's the rule, then you have to award it.

Ditto for Roberts and the infringement prior to the play the ball. You can't shoehorn in rule interpretations on the fly. Video ref can only call on infringement after play the ball. That said, he's a dumb ass for putting the boot in and deserves a week for it. Not as forceful not targeted at Kasiano's effort but a kick nonetheless. Titan player should have cleared the ruck but you can't put the boot in. Silly stuff from J Rob.

Hard to call either way on Parker. Admittedly leading with his head but it's pretty common in scrums with that many knuckle heads jostling for position.

As far as the end result goes, I can see why others have been critical of the refereeing. We did get some fortuitous calls, and in the end, the Titans were probably better than the scoreline suggested. However, I've never been one to pin on our losses on refereeing, no matter how dire. Teams get bad calls week in, week out. Good teams find a way to win regardless, losers look for excuses.

I think we all know there's some dreadful inconsistencies in rulings these days. It needs to be cleaned up. However, there's inconsistency in media/commentator opinion according to their particular bias. Some want black and white rulings, others want decisions made with some room for interpretation. Case in point, the Kahu penalty try.

You can't have it both ways. I'd argue rule changes need to be far more considered prior to implantation. If a rule is not functioning as intended, it was implemented with a poor definition to apply it.

 

[Mitchell_Broncos]

Who thinks that the try that was awarded by the refs by kahu should've been a try?. I know that there was a lot of media talk about it but in the end the rule book says if you kick the ball out of the hand of a player that was putting the ball down on the try line should be awarded a try. What's everyone's thoughts?.

 

[Porthoz]

Who thinks that the try that was awarded by the refs by kahu should've been a try?. I know that there was a lot of media talk about it but in the end the rule book says if you kick the ball out of the hand of a player that was putting the ball down on the try line should be awarded a try. What's everyone's thoughts?.

Actually, the rule book doesn't say that at all.

The rule is:

‘The Referee (or Review Officials) may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for theunfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts irrespective of where the offenceoccurred.’

Kicking a ball out of the hands of a player constitutes unfair play, hence the penalty try.

A lot of people are arguing that what Hurrell did wasn't dangerous, but forget it would open a can of worms if it was ever allowed, as unlike this occasion, there is a great chance a kick will hit something other than the ball, and seriously injure a player.

 

[ZTop]

If you want a good laugh head over to zerotackle.com and look at all the senseless idiots arguing

 

[abashii]

If you want a good laugh head over to zerotackle.com and look at all the senseless idiots arguing

No thanks. I had enough senseless idiots arguing and whinging via Nein on Friday night, then Triple am on Saturday, then Nein again on Sunday.

 

[Harry Sack]

No thanks. I had enough senseless idiots arguing and whinging via Nein on Friday night, then Triple am on Saturday, then Nein again on Sunday.

Don't forget to tune into NRL360 tonight then.

 

[GCBRONCO]

I'm surprised they didn't do a special one time show surrounding the match solely so a panel can crap on about it featuring Gould, Sterlo, Tallis, Alexander etc

 

[Big Pete]

What annoys me most about the game and everything that has come out of it, is the legacy it will have.

From now on, the Broncos will never win with the public.

If they cop a couple of dud decisions, no one will have an issue because it's 'karma'.

If we receive more favourable calls, the media will make it their mission to pressure the referees. This isn't the first time that's happened either. In the 90s, the media made a big deal about the Broncos success rate under Harrigan. All of a sudden, Harrigan started targeting the Broncos and we couldn't get a fair shake under him.

And of course if the Broncos go onto achieve the unlikely and win a premiership, the media will point to this game and how undeserving the Broncos were.

For mine, the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. Did the Titans receive a couple of incorrect calls? Yes, but no where near as many as the referees would have you believe.

There was the Mead challenge on Oates, which was wrong. However, you see those penalties awarded all the time. As we saw on Saturday with the Rapana challenge on Holmes, if a player ends up in a dangerous position, the referees are most likely going to blow the whistle regardless of the chaser's intent.

Then you've got the Roberts kick. The way the media is carrying on, you'd swear it's a full blooded kick. It was a nudge and while it should have been penalised, calls for him to be sent off are way out of line. I also like how the media ignore Simpkins effort in the ruck. He was all over him like a cheap suit and crowded the play-the-ball. That's what Sutton saw and was concerned with. However, if you go on the media's interpretation, Roberts just got up and kicked a player because he felt like it.

Those were the two incorrect calls and seriously, neither were THAT bad. It wasn't like Cummins marching Gillett to the bin for being 30m onside or the hand of Foran or any of that rubbish.

The issue is, the media wants to muddy the water and add these other controversial calls into the mix.

The penalty try was 100% correct. Why are the media getting into a tizzy over that? As long as the ball is in the player's possession, it's considered an extension of their body. You can't kick to prevent the try and if you're willing to resort to foul play to prevent the try, then you've got to live with the consequences.

The scrum reversal was 100% correct. Sutton had no idea who it came off, so he referred it right away to the bunker. It obviously came off Pulu, and what would have been a dud decision was corrected. However, since Gus Gould has never liked the video referee and hates getting decisions correct it's the wrong call.

Hayne throws a forward pass, we can easily see this thanks to the 40m line to determine the ball goes at least a metre forward. Even the Fox commentary on replay came down off their high horse on that call. However, Freddy still has an issue with it and has the audacity to accuse the McCullough pass to Glenn being forward.

And you'd think if they were running the line through the referees, they'd call it both ways. Not one media outlet has discussed the Hoffman push in the back on Pearson (which was picked up on the Fox call, so it wasn't like it wasn't noticeable) and the Greg Bird drop which at best was a 50/50 decision.

Oh and that Parker headbutt. Please, would we even be discussing it if the 9 producers didn't zoom in on the scrum? We see that type of play happen all the time. In fact, there was a memorable example where Browne clearly targeted Burgess' broken cheek bone in the grand final. What was the decision then? Play on. That's one of those 'incorrect' decisions that's only received any play because of social media.

I don't think any Broncos fan would begrudge the Titans for feeling frustrated. There were some tough calls and after all the hard-work, you hate for those calls to go against your side in that situation. However, the reaction and the crap we've had to put up with is unwarranted.

 

[Sproj]

It's a vicious cycle. The refs get it right *which is rare*, they get panned by biased *professional* commentators. The refs get it wrong, they get panned by fans. The problem is the amateurism that runs through every facet of league...except the Broncos and Storm club set ups. I am constantly annoyed by everything NRL related except my beloved team. The commentary and its biased amateurishness is just an icing on top of a very pathetically made cake in general. All the ingredients are there for this to be the top code in Australia. It is just that the cooks have no idea what they are doing with it and since people keep eating it because there is nothing else available, they pat themselves on the back and tell each other they are doing a good job while unknowingly poisoning their supporter base.

Good analogy?

 

[Broncoman]

What annoys me most about the game and everything that has come out of it, is the legacy it will have.

From now on, the Broncos will never win with the public.

If they cop a couple of dud decisions, no one will have an issue because it's 'karma'.

If we receive more favourable calls, the media will make it their mission to pressure the referees. This isn't the first time that's happened either. In the 90s, the media made a big deal about the Broncos success rate under Harrigan. All of a sudden, Harrigan started targeting the Broncos and we couldn't get a fair shake under him.

And of course if the Broncos go onto achieve the unlikely and win a premiership, the media will point to this game and how undeserving the Broncos were.

For mine, the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. Did the Titans receive a couple of incorrect calls? Yes, but no where near as many as the referees would have you believe.

There was the Mead challenge on Oates, which was wrong. However, you see those penalties awarded all the time. As we saw on Saturday with the Rapana challenge on Holmes, if a player ends up in a dangerous position, the referees are most likely going to blow the whistle regardless of the chaser's intent.

Then you've got the Roberts kick. The way the media is carrying on, you'd swear it's a full blooded kick. It was a nudge and while it should have been penalised, calls for him to be sent off are way out of line. I also like how the media ignore Simpkins effort in the ruck. He was all over him like a cheap suit and crowded the play-the-ball. That's what Sutton saw and was concerned with. However, if you go on the media's interpretation, Roberts just got up and kicked a player because he felt like it.

Those were the two incorrect calls and seriously, neither were THAT bad. It wasn't like Cummins marching Gillett to the bin for being 30m onside or the hand of Foran or any of that rubbish.

The issue is, the media wants to muddy the water and add these other controversial calls into the mix.

The penalty try was 100% correct. Why are the media getting into a tizzy over that? As long as the ball is in the player's possession, it's considered an extension of their body. You can't kick to prevent the try and if you're willing to resort to foul play to prevent the try, then you've got to live with the consequences.

The scrum reversal was 100% correct. Sutton had no idea who it came off, so he referred it right away to the bunker. It obviously came off Pulu, and what would have been a dud decision was corrected. However, since Gus Gould has never liked the video referee and hates getting decisions correct it's the wrong call.

Hayne throws a forward pass, we can easily see this thanks to the 40m line to determine the ball goes at least a metre forward. Even the Fox commentary on replay came down off their high horse on that call. However, Freddy still has an issue with it and has the audacity to accuse the McCullough pass to Glenn being forward.

And you'd think if they were running the line through the referees, they'd call it both ways. Not one media outlet has discussed the Hoffman push in the back on Pearson (which was picked up on the Fox call, so it wasn't like it wasn't noticeable) and the Greg Bird drop which at best was a 50/50 decision.

Oh and that Parker headbutt. Please, would we even be discussing it if the 9 producers didn't zoom in on the scrum? We see that type of play happen all the time. In fact, there was a memorable example where Browne clearly targeted Burgess' broken cheek bone in the grand final. What was the decision then? Play on. That's one of those 'incorrect' decisions that's only received any play because of social media.

I don't think any Broncos fan would begrudge the Titans for feeling frustrated. There were some tough calls and after all the hard-work, you hate for those calls to go against your side in that situation. However, the reaction and the crap we've had to put up with is unwarranted.

Superb work

Wonder if the Titans are going to admit they simply weren't good enough. If they were genuine they wouldn't concede 28 points after leading by 2 at the break.

 

[Dash]

I have no problem with the Mead and Rapana penalties. To me, it's the rugby league equivalent of the AFL's 'tunnelling' rule.

The defender isn't going to be able to win the marking contest, so instead goes under the jumping player.

Mead did it to Oates twice, and the first time he earned his team a try. That was actually the more blatant of the two- Mead didn't even leave the ground and ran straight into Oates. Oates just happened to fall more softly, so the referees' attention wasn't drawn. Hoffman did the same thing to Pearson, albeit leading with his hands.

I'm happy for it to be penalised, otherwise the defender player becomes fair game for any attacker who knows he can't make the catch. You can't tackle them mid-air, so instead you just run into them while pretending to look at the ball.

 

[Socnorb]

I have no problem with the Mead and Rapana penalties. To me, it's the rugby league equivalent of the AFL's 'tunnelling' rule.

The defender isn't going to be able to win the marking contest, so instead goes under the jumping player.

Mead did it to Oates twice, and the first time he earned his team a try. That was actually the more blatant of the two- Mead didn't even leave the ground and ran straight into Oates. Oates just happened to fall more softly, so the referees' attention wasn't drawn. Hoffman did the same thing to Pearson, albeit leading with his hands.

I'm happy for it to be penalised, otherwise the defender player becomes fair game for any attacker who knows he can't make the catch. You can't tackle them mid-air, so instead you just run into them while pretending to look at the ball.[/QUOTE



I mostly agree with this being a tactic. the Mead one was a bit different as he was in front of Oates.

 

[Dash]

I mostly agree with this being a tactic. the Mead one was a bit different as he was in front of Oates.

It's not so much the in front/behind difference, it's the up/down. It isn't deliberate every time, but at the moment there's no onus on the attacking player to do anything other than spoil the contest. They were always going to turnover possession so there's nothing to lose from dropping the catch. The fact that the ball landed on Oates (and the Sharks player's) chest while being 3 feet above the chaser means the chaser was nowhere near making the catch.

I'm happy for players to do it, whether deliberately or accidentally, but if the guy in the air gets flipped onto their head you should be penalised. If the attacker gets off the ground and is a genuine chance of catching the ball, then no penalty.

 

[Culhwch]

It's not so much the in front/behind difference, it's the up/down. It isn't deliberate every time, but at the moment there's no onus on the attacking player to do anything other than spoil the contest. They were always going to turnover possession so there's nothing to lose from dropping the catch. The fact that the ball landed on Oates (and the Sharks player's) chest while being 3 feet above the chaser means the chaser was nowhere near making the catch.

I'm happy for players to do it, whether deliberately or accidentally, but if the guy in the air gets flipped onto their head you should be penalised. If the attacker gets off the ground and is a genuine chance of catching the ball, then no penalty.

I totally agree with this. I think that there needs to be a clarification of the definition of 'contesting' the kick. The attacking player needs to make a genuine effort to go up to get the ball to be considered to be contesting the kick. Anything else really is just spoiling and hoping for an error.

 

[Harry Sack]

What annoys me most about the game and everything that has come out of it, is the legacy it will have.

From now on, the Broncos will never win with the public.

If they cop a couple of dud decisions, no one will have an issue because it's 'karma'.

If we receive more favourable calls, the media will make it their mission to pressure the referees. This isn't the first time that's happened either. In the 90s, the media made a big deal about the Broncos success rate under Harrigan. All of a sudden, Harrigan started targeting the Broncos and we couldn't get a fair shake under him.

And of course if the Broncos go onto achieve the unlikely and win a premiership, the media will point to this game and how undeserving the Broncos were.

For mine, the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. Did the Titans receive a couple of incorrect calls? Yes, but no where near as many as the referees would have you believe.

There was the Mead challenge on Oates, which was wrong. However, you see those penalties awarded all the time. As we saw on Saturday with the Rapana challenge on Holmes, if a player ends up in a dangerous position, the referees are most likely going to blow the whistle regardless of the chaser's intent.

Then you've got the Roberts kick. The way the media is carrying on, you'd swear it's a full blooded kick. It was a nudge and while it should have been penalised, calls for him to be sent off are way out of line. I also like how the media ignore Simpkins effort in the ruck. He was all over him like a cheap suit and crowded the play-the-ball. That's what Sutton saw and was concerned with. However, if you go on the media's interpretation, Roberts just got up and kicked a player because he felt like it.

Those were the two incorrect calls and seriously, neither were THAT bad. It wasn't like Cummins marching Gillett to the bin for being 30m onside or the hand of Foran or any of that rubbish.

The issue is, the media wants to muddy the water and add these other controversial calls into the mix.

The penalty try was 100% correct. Why are the media getting into a tizzy over that? As long as the ball is in the player's possession, it's considered an extension of their body. You can't kick to prevent the try and if you're willing to resort to foul play to prevent the try, then you've got to live with the consequences.

The scrum reversal was 100% correct. Sutton had no idea who it came off, so he referred it right away to the bunker. It obviously came off Pulu, and what would have been a dud decision was corrected. However, since Gus Gould has never liked the video referee and hates getting decisions correct it's the wrong call.

Hayne throws a forward pass, we can easily see this thanks to the 40m line to determine the ball goes at least a metre forward. Even the Fox commentary on replay came down off their high horse on that call. However, Freddy still has an issue with it and has the audacity to accuse the McCullough pass to Glenn being forward.

And you'd think if they were running the line through the referees, they'd call it both ways. Not one media outlet has discussed the Hoffman push in the back on Pearson (which was picked up on the Fox call, so it wasn't like it wasn't noticeable) and the Greg Bird drop which at best was a 50/50 decision.

Oh and that Parker headbutt. Please, would we even be discussing it if the 9 producers didn't zoom in on the scrum? We see that type of play happen all the time. In fact, there was a memorable example where Browne clearly targeted Burgess' broken cheek bone in the grand final. What was the decision then? Play on. That's one of those 'incorrect' decisions that's only received any play because of social media.

I don't think any Broncos fan would begrudge the Titans for feeling frustrated. There were some tough calls and after all the hard-work, you hate for those calls to go against your side in that situation. However, the reaction and the crap we've had to put up with is unwarranted.

Excellent summation.

IMO, we were on a hiding to nothing with the media/public the moment the penalty try was awarded. Because they're so rare and people clearly don't understand the rules around them. Now to show MY ignorance on them, what was the go with the Kahu try? Ash Taylor was clearly off side and almost prevented him from scoring by trying to hold him back. Why no penalty? Surely that's a professional foul? The fact that Kahu managed to score should be irrelevant.