POST GAME Round 16 - Broncos vs Raiders

[Cult]

What do you reckon the huddle is champ?

Isn't that what the Storm do every time they make a tackle?

 

[pagey]

I was at the game. This wasn't the case. Boyd was doing a lot of talking in the huddle and from the back. Milford kept yelling at his team mates for not passing him the ball when he was running unrealistic lines, throwing his arms in the air constantly and rolling his eyes into the sky when he would do something stupid. He also yelled at his own team when he would make errors.

Sounds like you were right by his side all night.

 

[Cult]

Sounds like you were right by his side all night.

Certainly wasn't too far away from him

 

[WASSHHH]

maybe you should read the post you quoted, in case you missed it, i'll quote it again for you and highlight it for you


you may not see it on TV (especially since they are focusing on the kick) ... but you do clear as day at the ground ...

I’m not sure if you’ve intentionally done the same thing you’ve accused me of for comical lols or if you’re just not clever enough to notice you have?

Should I patronisingly quote and highlight some text from the dialogue to try and make myself feel somehow superior / prove my point? Is that how it works?

 

[broncos4life]

Boyd is fullback, it’s his job to organise the defence from out the back... it’s not a case of he should be vocal, he MUST.

But talk in general play is not what I am talking about nor what I assume IBM was talking about. I’m talking about behind the try line after conceding points or after scoring points. I’m not doubting you, but it must be a massive coincidence that every time they showed footage in the huddles, the only bloke making any solid attempt to rally the troops was Milford.

:emoji_thinking:

What do you reckon the huddle is champ?

 

[WASSHHH]

What do you reckon the huddle is champ?

If you want to engage in serious conversation, I’m happy to do so.

If you want to be condescending and passive aggressive, please take it somewhere else.

 

[Mitch06]

How many times did Sims make a tackle and not make any effort to make it back to the defensive line? **** me, he didn't show any urgency at all...I hope Wayne saw that Hodgson's try was the direct result of Boyd having to go into marker, as Sims was hanging out on the ground. I know it was his game back, but this bloke is frustrating.

 

[Stix]

On top of that, the Fox Sports half time show showed Boyd laying down the law as well. I think he deserves plenty of credit for our 2nd half.

How good was it seeing Jimmy show up on every side of the field looking for the ball. He was getting into dummy half and was at first receiver a lot as well. I think he was the main catalyst for the comeback.

Great to see him backing himself. He spotted the defence slow getting back and swooped in a couple of times to take advantage. Now just need Milf or Niko to start following him in these situations.
The guy is a serious weapon when he plays with confidence.

 

[broncos4life]

If you want to engage in serious conversation, I’m happy to do so.

If you want to be condescending and passive aggressive, please take it somewhere else.

It’s a legitimate question which you won’t answer, how is that a conversation?

 

[Jedhead]

I have rewatched the Raiders' first try a few times now and there is never a point when Knik has the ball in his hands yet he is tackled to the ground to make sure he cannot regather it. This was a clear penalty for tackling the man without the ball. Am I the only one to see it like this? I'm quite sure if it was us tackling the opposing half without the ball leading to a try they would first of all go upstairs to scrutinise it and then take it off us for foul play. The fact we all sat there and said nothing must have them laughing their socks off back in Sydney and Canberra.

 

[Socnorb]

I have rewatched the Raiders' first try a few times now and there is never a point when Knik has the ball in his hands yet he is tackled to the ground to make sure he cannot regather it. This was a clear penalty for tackling the man without the ball. Am I the only one to see it like this? I'm quite sure if it was us tackling the opposing half without the ball leading to a try they would first of all go upstairs to scrutinise it and then take it off us for foul play. The fact we all sat there and said nothing must have them laughing their socks off back in Sydney and Canberra.

Yeah, I thought that as well.

 

[BroncsFan]

I have rewatched the Raiders' first try a few times now and there is never a point when Knik has the ball in his hands yet he is tackled to the ground to make sure he cannot regather it. This was a clear penalty for tackling the man without the ball. Am I the only one to see it like this? I'm quite sure if it was us tackling the opposing half without the ball leading to a try they would first of all go upstairs to scrutinise it and then take it off us for foul play. The fact we all sat there and said nothing must have them laughing their socks off back in Sydney and Canberra.

I was alright with it... as soon as the player touches the ball the defender is allowed to make a tackle under the assumption that they will take control of the ball.

I haven't watched it again since the first viewing but I believe we get an initial touch trying to bat it backwards??? If so then that would constitute playing at the ball and they are fair game.

 

[Jedhead]

I was alright with it... as soon as the player touches the ball the defender is allowed to make a tackle under the assumption that they will take control of the ball.

I haven't watched it again since the first viewing but I believe we get an initial touch trying to bat it backwards??? If so then that would constitute playing at the ball and they are fair game.

Not sure where you got the idea about being allowed to tackle under the assumption idea. The law clearly states- it is illegal to tackle or obstruct a player who is not in possession of the ball. In your case any player could tackle any opposition player under the grounds that as they were on the field he assumed he'd eventually be in possession of the ball.

 

[WASSHHH]

It’s a legitimate question which you won’t answer, how is that a conversation?

OK mate - I’m tapping out.

If you can’t see that I’ve used ‘huddle’ correctly and that your original patronising comment does nothing to constructively add to the original conversation; honestly, I can’t help you.

 

[BroncsFan]

Not sure where you got the idea about being allowed to tackle under the assumption idea. The law clearly states- it is illegal to tackle or obstruct a player who is not in possession of the ball. In your case any player could tackle any opposition player under the grounds that as they were on the field he assumed he'd eventually be in possession of the ball.

I clearly stated that contact with the ball constitutes playing at the ball and at that point the defenders can assume possession... and from my recollection there was an attempt to pick it up and at that moment Niko did in fact make contact with the ball.

If they start introducing laws to define when a player has possession of the ball you are opening up a can of worms...

For example there are times, typically on line breaks, where a player is passed the ball and immediately after or sometimes simultaneously is tackled. Sometimes this player is juggling the ball or otherwise does not have control, yet the defender is able to tackle as soon as they touch it... as it is assumed (by touching it) they have control.

Same thing happens with grubbers into the in goal the tackle from a defender on the fullback can be simultaneous at times, but the second the fullback touches the ball it is assumed possession/playing at the ball and they are free game. Sometimes the fullback doesn't have full control so should the defender be penalised for making the tackle??

Sometimes the fullback is tackled after they have clearly attempted to bat it dead... should the defender be penalised for tackling without the ball in those situations as well.

Sometimes a prop juggles the ball from a simple one out pass and gets leveled whilst they juggle it... should the defender be penalised because they don't have control.

My point is as soon as a player touches it the defender has a right to tackle them (provided it is not a late hit after they've passed, etc.) as it is assumed the player is in control of the ball.

 

[broncos4life]

OK mate - I’m tapping out.

If you can’t see that I’ve used ‘huddle’ correctly and that your original patronising comment does nothing to constructively add to the original conversation; honestly, I can’t help you.

What? You responded to the post that said Boyd was talking in the huddle with ‘I’m
not talking about general play’ which is exactly why I asked you what do you think a huddle is, because it appears you think it is general play which is is not.

 

[Jedhead]

I clearly stated that contact with the ball constitutes playing at the ball and at that point the defenders can assume possession... and from my recollection there was an attempt to pick it up and at that moment Niko did in fact make contact with the ball.

If they start introducing laws to define when a player has possession of the ball you are opening up a can of worms...

For example there are times, typically on line breaks, where a player is passed the ball and immediately after or sometimes simultaneously is tackled. Sometimes this player is juggling the ball or otherwise does not have control, yet the defender is able to tackle as soon as they touch it... as it is assumed (by touching it) they have control.

Same thing happens with grubbers into the in goal the tackle from a defender on the fullback can be simultaneous at times, but the second the fullback touches the ball it is assumed possession/playing at the ball and they are free game. Sometimes the fullback doesn't have full control so should the defender be penalised for making the tackle??

Sometimes the fullback is tackled after they have clearly attempted to bat it dead... should the defender be penalised for tackling without the ball in those situations as well.

Sometimes a prop juggles the ball from a simple one out pass and gets leveled whilst they juggle it... should the defender be penalised because they don't have control. (Not having control and not having possession are two entirely different scenarios)

My point is as soon as a player touches it the defender has a right to tackle them (provided it is not a late hit after they've passed, etc.) as it is assumed the player is in control of the ball.

I'm not talking about introducing laws to say when a player is in possession of the ball (there is no need as there already are). What I am saying is that in NIko's case he was clearly not in possession of the ball and the ensuing tackle is effected to ensure he has his arms pinned so that he was in fact unable to even reach for the ball which is illegal under our current system.

 

[Super Freak]

I have rewatched the Raiders' first try a few times now and there is never a point when Knik has the ball in his hands yet he is tackled to the ground to make sure he cannot regather it. This was a clear penalty for tackling the man without the ball. Am I the only one to see it like this? I'm quite sure if it was us tackling the opposing half without the ball leading to a try they would first of all go upstairs to scrutinise it and then take it off us for foul play. The fact we all sat there and said nothing must have them laughing their socks off back in Sydney and Canberra.

The player only needs to make contact with the ball.

Once that happens, the defender can tackle him. This is why Manu was not penalized for his push on Su'A in the Roosters match.

It doesn't matter if Kodi doesn't have the ball in his hands, it never has. What matters is whether the player has already made contact with the ball or not. Once they have, it's fair game.

Unfortunately, it's a fair try.