Round 14 Discussion

Locky just made a good point about that penalty try. Chee kam didnt lose the ball in the high tackle, he lost it when Kahu stripped it as he was grounding, which he is entitled to do, so isnt that just a penalty?
 
Wolfie said:
Locky just made a good point about that penalty try. Chee kam didnt lose the ball in the high tackle, he lost it when Kahu stripped it as he was grounding, which he is entitled to do, so isnt that just a penalty?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it be a try to Marsters? That was Lockyer's point and as Esan's fantasy coach, I tend to agree.
 
Big Pete said:
Why wouldn't it be a try to Marsters? That was Lockyer's point and as Esan's fantasy coach, I tend to agree.
Click to expand...

The Marsters one where he knocked on? It was Chee Kam wasnt it who Kahu stripped after the high tackle.
 
Wolfie said:
The Marsters one where he knocked on? It was Chee Kam wasnt it who Kahu stripped after the high tackle.
Click to expand...

Kahu stripped Chee-Kam, which meant the ball was still live then Marsters (?) grounded the ball.
 
soup said:
It seems very simple to me. Yes he’s entitled to do that, but not when the attacker is over the try line and after a hit to the head. The head high shot is the first issue, anything after that is not important.
Click to expand...

But the initial tackle was before the line, so thats surely where the penalty should have been. He held the ball even after the tackle, and lost it while trying to ground it due to Kahu. Now i've seen it a few times, i'd be livid if they gave that as a penalty try against us. If the head high shot was the issue, that was a penalty before the try line.
 
Big Pete said:
Kahu stripped Chee-Kam, which meant the ball was still live then Marsters (?) grounded the ball.
Click to expand...

I must admit i didnt notice that, but if they allowed the strip wouldnt that have been a lost ball or the ref or video ref would have just given the try to Marsters anyway. I've given up trying to work out the mind of refs!
 
Wolfie said:
I must admit i didnt notice that, but if they allowed the strip wouldnt that have been a lost ball or the ref or video ref would have just given the try to Marsters anyway. I've given up trying to work out the mind of refs!
Click to expand...

It's a strange situation because normally the referees would just play the advantage, but because the infraction occurred before the try was scored and the video referee was of the opinion Chee-Kam would have scored had the high tackle not caused him to loosen his grip, he had to pay it.
 
soup said:
And I agree with the decision. Otherwise (not that I believe in NRL precedences) players will go the foul play to stop the try. It’s the whole reason there is a penalty try imo.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to give the video referees the benefit of the doubt. It was a big decision and they didn't shy away from it or look at alternative ways to make it 'fairer'.

In the end, the credit has to go to Marshall and Chee-Kam for making the play happen.
 
soup said:
Gotta admit a guilty pleasure; I’ve always really rated M’bye. I’m of the opinion that he’s never been utilised properly and moved around so much that he’s barely had a chance to know his role.

I was actually really happy for him to be selected as utility for Queensland. He covers halves, centres, hooker, and fullback. He’s an echo of Berrigan IMO.

Would happily see him sign as the Broncos Toni Kukoch. (?spelling)
Click to expand...
You sounded it out well...there are letters there that do not exist in English. Kukoč is how it would be spelled in Croatia/ex-Yugo countries.
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 602
1:24:54
NSWRL Round 18, 1988 - Brisbane Broncos vs Western Suburbs Magpies
View full media list »

Active Now

  • Porthoz
Total: 53 (members: 2, guests: 51)
Robots: 283
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.