Round 1 Discussion

[Super Freak]

Watching the replay of the Jennings sin bin..

It baffles me how that's worthy of being sent to the bin. Yeo was falling which causes Jennings to hit him high, that happens in just about every single game of the season and it's never been a sin bin even if the player that was hit high was out for the rest of the game.. except for now.

 

[Super Freak]

Oh Cartwright.

He hasn't changed. Just stood there and watched Soliola.

 

[Dexter]

Tits are getting hammered for nearly every indiscretion while to my eye the Raiders are getting things a bit easy.

Boyd and Wallace have to be the softest front row combo in the game. They are big enough but jeez they get dominated easily.

 

[Battler]

Bateman is really good. Hopefully Gillett can play like him if he stays in the middle.

 

[scobie]

Jack Wighton has looked very solid at 6.

 

[Dexter]

Yes he has. It makes a big difference having some size at the 3 in defender.

 

[Battler]

Only seen one penalty for back chat (against Joe O) this round despite plenty of it.

 

[Morkel]

Even Harrigan & Girdler were saying that the refereeing style of “let it flow” is in danger of being exploited by the “smarter” (their words) coaches like Robinson & Bellamy. Hollywood said that he was screaming at the TV in the second half of our game, telling them to get off.

 

[Dexter]

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/03/16/kearney-calls-for-review-on-mid-air-contests/

The NRL have a real problem which they have not addressed but should. I have NFI how BTW but how can you be suspending players for dangerous play in Lodges instance ( which I agree with ) but then allowing mid air tackling on the attacking player from a kick. Dangerous is dangerous.

 

[scobie]

Yes he has. It makes a big difference having some size at the 3 in defender.

It does. I've been most impressed with his kicking game though. Very controlled and accurate.

 

[Dexter]

Yeah, he has surprised the **** out of me TBH. Only rnd though but last year he was ordinary at 6 for the first 9 rnds

 

[Super Freak]

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/03/16/kearney-calls-for-review-on-mid-air-contests/

The NRL have a real problem which they have not addressed but should. I have NFI how BTW but how can you be suspending players for dangerous play in Lodges instance ( which I agree with ) but then allowing mid air tackling on the attacking player from a kick. Dangerous is dangerous.

If you weren't allowed to tackle the attacking player in mid-air then teams would just put up constant bombs knowing the defenders can't touch them.

The game would pretty much turn into AFL.

 

[Dexter]

If you weren't allowed to tackle the attacking player in mid-air then teams would just put up constant bombs knowing the defenders can't touch them.

The game would pretty much turn into AFL.

I agree but it's still contradictory in the extreme. Saying you are banning a certain tackle for safety but allowing it in certain situations. It still unsafe. Like I said I have no idea on an answer it's only a matter of time before an attacking player gets badly hurt.

 

[Big Pete]

Yeah, he has surprised the **** out of me TBH. Only rnd though but last year he was ordinary at 6 for the first 9 rnds

I agree.

When Stuart started coaching the Raiders, one of the biggest changes he made was moving Wighton to 6. The move didn't last long as the Raiders attack struggled to click and Jack struggled to guide the team around the park. While it's still early days, some of his kicks tonight were game-changers and the energy he brought with the football made a massive difference.

He hasn't played there since 2014, so maybe the first grade experience at 1 has helped him adjust to the demands of NRL football.

I'll be interested to see how he handles the defence. His stats of 13 tackles 5 missed isn't impressive at all, but I don't think it was a true reflection. I guess we'll see how he goes against Melbourne and Newcastle who are extremely good at using their edges.

 

[Morkel]

There is a slight difference. The reason for the rule on defenders is because without it, players could literally just smash in to their legs and it's pretty much guaranteed to result in an injury or lost ball, regardless of whether they end up over the horizontal. In an attacking situation, taking out the legs pretty much guarantees the attacker a free catch, and even if they get upended they want to get their upper body near the ground to score the try.

Also, in 90% of occasions, the defender is generally at a much lower speed and the attacker is steaming in with momentum. Defender is at a complete disadvantage.

 

[Super Freak]

I agree but it's still contradictory in the extreme. Saying you are banning a certain tackle for safety but allowing it in certain situations. It still unsafe. Like I said I have no idea on an answer it's only a matter of time before an attacking player gets badly hurt.

I'm pretty sure they still get penalized and charged if the tackled player ends up in a dangerous position.

Apart from that, I can't think of any other way to police it.

 

[Kimlo]

Mal's tip for premiers got belted 21-0, lol.

 

[Foordy]

Mal's tip for premiers got belted 21-0, lol.

And the Raiders were the ones doing the belting ... Double lol