Round 11 - Tigers v Broncos - Post Match Discussion

[Super Freak]

Does it still count as a high shot then?

Of course. We should have got the penalty, but I was just simply stating that it wasn't a shoulder charge.

 

[Donald]

I think it could be argued that anasta interfered with the play because he is running at the ball with the intention to play at it, meaning the defense has to make a decision it shouldnt have to. But we can't even get a penalty for deliberate contact with the head so I hardly think we would have gotten anywhere

Yeah thats exactly what I thought. If Anasta is running towards the ball then he is making an attempt to either A) Pick the ball up B) Kick the ball again or C) Tackle Barba if he picks the ball up.

I just cant see how him being within 2-3m of the ball in an offside position after running 30m down field does not constatute a penatly to us...? This is why fans become annoyed with the ref's. The McCullough one was worse then the Lowrie one but they get a penalty and we dont. Its a joke!!

 

[Morkel]

I think it could be argued that anasta interfered with the play because he is running at the ball with the intention to play at it, meaning the defense has to make a decision it shouldnt have to. But we can't even get a penalty for deliberate contact with the head so I hardly think we would have gotten anywhere

Yeah that's exactly as I saw it. You can see one of our guys holding his spot inside of Barba, with Barba competing against Brooks and our other guy keeping Anasta marked. He clearly influenced the play, penalty every time.

 

[Donald]

Yeah that's exactly as I saw it. You can see one of our guys holding his spot inside of Barba, with Barba competing against Brooks and our other guy keeping Anasta marked. He clearly influenced the play, penalty every time.

Yeah im pretty sure its Vidot but could be wrong

 

[broncos4life]

LOLZ Lowrie charged but nothing for Luani putting macca into next week.

Lowrie Charged By Judiciary - Broncos

The NRL is getting to the point where they are playing chicken with the fans

 

[noisetheory]

for what its worth im not concerned about the brooks try. if im being honest and it was the other way around, i'd be mad if the try was taken off us for the same thing, and i bet most here would be too. they've been ruling offsides the same way all year so to me it was at least consistent.

 

[Super Freak]

Isn't there a rule that says if the ball touches an opponent, all offside players are put onside?

The ball did ricochet off Hunt.

 

[Brett]

Isn't there a rule that says if the ball touches an opponent, all offside players are put onside?

The ball did ricochet off Hunt.

Yes.

 

[noisetheory]

somewhat, yeah, from 2013 rules:

3. An offside player is placed onside if:
(b) an opponent touches the ball without retaining it.

there is also this

2. Any offside player who remains within ten metres of an opponent who is set to catch a kick up field by an opposing player shall be deemed to be interfering with or attempting to interfere with the catcher and shall be penalised unless the non-offending team gains an immediate advantage.

by that second part then it should definitely have been a penalty, but im not sure if the ball touching hunt puts him onside.

 

[subsbligh]

I *thought* unless Hunt played at Brooks' kick, then the runners remain offside.

e.g. Let say charge down by opposing team, ball goes sideways or slightly forward and picked up by "off-side" player. Play on.

Same situation, but the "charge down" is a kick in the back of opposing team, richochets into an offside player.. I think play on is the right call?

Applying the rule in reverse (which we saw in the Tigers game as well), ball kicked into your team mates back and richochets into another team mates arms. Offside, penalty (not even a scrum/accidental).

So my conclusion is I think intention is irrelevant - contact with opposition player means everyone is onside.


FWIW - I vaguely recall ref voice over saying "he's played at it". He might have been talking about Barba though.

Fair try for mine regardless.

Highlighted again Barba's timidness. Throw your body on the line dude.

 

[noisetheory]

i watched it earlier and hunt played at it imo.

 

[Kimlo]

I seriously don't understand how Lowrie was charged...

 

[Sproj]

I seriously don't understand how Lowrie was charged...

Because the player was upright, hit twenty years late, reckless and completely illegal. Right?

 

[Brett]

Doesn't matter if the player plays at the ball or not. If the ball hits an opposing player, the whole team is put onside immediately.

 

[uptheguts]

Re Lowrie getting charged. Just laughable . Broncos should bring a video of the half hour late head shot on Macca to the tribunal and ask please explain why our man is being dragged before the court and not theirs. Should at least make the NSWs pricks sqirm a little. Get ready for the same bias in origin from the video refs and tribunal and commentators. Worst offenders will be Rabbits and Sterlo.

 

[LittleDavey]

Re Lowrie getting charged. Just laughable . Broncos should bring a video of the half hour late head shot on Macca to the tribunal and ask please explain why our man is being dragged before the court and not theirs. Should at least make the NSWs pricks sqirm a little. Get ready for the same bias in origin from the video refs and tribunal and commentators. Worst offenders will be Rabbits and Sterlo.

And Gus! Mind you, he's gotten a lot better - he clearly loves watching the Qld team play, despite their colours! You can hear the amazement in his voice.

I'll never forget his screaming in agony as Locky crossed for the series-winner in 2006 tho ;) "NO!!!!! NO!!!!" Ohhhhh yes, Gus, ohhh fucking yesssss!!!!

 

[Alec]

Lowrie being out means a bigger chance of Molo having another game. I'm all for it.

 

[Foordy]

Lowrie being out means a bigger chance of Molo having another game. I'm all for it.

Lowrie won't be suspended, if he enters an early guilty plea. so thats what he'll do.