Game II Discussion

[talanoa]

And NSW weren't blatantly targeting Thurston's injured shoulder in an attempt to gain some kind of advantage by causing more damage/discomfort? Please...

Fifita even gave him a late whack on that shoulder.

so would you have the nsw players not run at thurston at all, are they supposed to disappear and run the other way because he has a sore shoulder??? the arguement is seriously flawed.

 

[Nashy]

I usually give NRL360 a miss when Rothfield is on but I'm giving it a go tonight for shits and giggles. The demented whining will be delicious.

He blocked me on Twitter. I'm very upset.

 

[uptheguts]

You have to give Kevie Walters and the rest of the coaching staff some credit for the win.

One thing I noticed was the more then normal number of hit ups taken by the backs. I think that was tactical ploy by the coaches to give the forwards some extra gas to continue to maintain the line speed in defence for the whole game. They were just swarming the Blues all night which pretty much negated Fifita and Woods.

 

[Super Freak]

Running at a blokes injured shoulder and what Thaiday did are not even close to being in the same ball park.

Targeting a deficiency in a defensive line and being a bit of a **** are completely different if you ask me.

Deliberately targeting an injury is what the NRL fined Thaiday for.

It's the same thing when you deliberately target a players busted shoulder.

I don't agree with the whole thing. Doing that is part of the game. But to say that NSW weren't targeting Thurston in an attempt to hurt him is a bit naive.. Especially when they would raise the elbow/forearm when making contact with the shoulder and put on cheap shots at that specific part of his body when he had the ball in hand.

 

[Dexter]

so would you have the nsw players not run at thurston at all, are they supposed to disappear and run the other way because he has a sore shoulder??? the arguement is seriously flawed.

I think they are saying that Frizell led with a high elbow therefore a deliberate targeting of the injury not just forcing him to tackle and Fifita did hit him late with a swinging arm also aimed at the injury and nothing to do with with JT making a tackle.
Personally I think you take your chances if you go out there with injury but I see the argument.

 

[broncsgoat]

Deliberately targeting an injury is what the NRL fined Thaiday for.

It's the same thing when you deliberately target a players busted shoulder.

I don't agree with the whole thing. Doing that is part of the game. But to say that NSW weren't targeting Thurston in an attempt to hurt him is a bit naive.. Especially when they would raise the elbow/forearm when making contact with the shoulder and put on cheap shots at that specific part of his body when he had the ball in hand.

Im pretty sure the official charge sheet read 'guilty of being a bit of a ****'.

But seriously, I don't think it's the same thing anyway. Putting a bit of an extra effort in on a tackle or targeting an injured player is par for the course normally, which is why Joey was so gobsmacked about NSW failing to do so. I know I would be livid if Maloney /Pearce were on one leg and we didn't target him, it just makes sense.

 

[tommy]

He blocked me on Twitter. I'm very upset.

He deleted my comment from his blog with buzz. Shattered.

 

[Unbreakable]

Saw another angle of the Holmes try.

His heel was planted. It wasn't in the air. He was out, just.

Would you mind linking it? I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest he was out, happy to be proven wrong though.

 

[Super Freak]

First frame. Heel planted.

Second frame. Heel still planted.

Third frame. Heel finally in the air.

The doubt was whether or not the heel was in the air or planted. If it was planted, he was out. But they had insufficient evidence to say the heel was planted.

Those first two frames show it was.

 

[Big Pete]

Insufficient.

 

[Super Freak]

Insufficient.

Quite sufficient.

Look at the side on and look at the front on together. Clear as day.

The left side of the boot was covering part of the line.. The question was whether the heel was in the air or not. It wasn't.

 

[Big Pete]

Disagree, until we have a clear image of the heel actually touching the sideline there isn't enough evidence to over turn the decision.

 

[Super Freak]

Disagree, until we have a clear image of the heel actually touching the sideline there isn't enough evidence to over turn the decision.

That image would be the front on shot we all saw on TV.

When you look at that exact moment from another angle, which I posted above if you want to compare, it shows the heel was firmly planted on the ground.

It's quite clear.

 

[Unbreakable]

I'd say insufficient as well.

With the way the foot is shaped and the way he was "tip-toeing" down the side line, it's possible that the outter side of his foot is planted and the inside heel is still marginally off the ground, as Pete said, still not enough to overturn the live decision.

 

[Big Pete]

That image would be the front on shot we all saw on TV.

When you look at that exact moment from another angle, which I posted above if you want to compare, it shows the heel was firmly planted on the ground.

It's quite clear.

Not really, that front on angle wasn't conclusive in the slightest and the only way to tell would have been the side on view with the line in sight.

 

[Organix]

EDIT: Sorry man, didn't refresh. I can see your point, but the past is the past. Who knows what might have come from them not awarding that try.

 

[Big Pete]

@Organix

https://broncoshq.com/threads/game-ii-discussion.31879/page-37#post-2849308

 

[Super Freak]

When you know that heel is planted at that exact moment, it's pretty conclusive.

Zooming in on the boot just shows the heel planted on the line, as well.