POST GAME [Round 6, 2026] - Broncos vs Cowboys

[Brocko]

Because I was so pissed off and it was a frustrating loss I hadn't watched the replay after being at the game as I usually would. So watched the extended highlights earlier.

It might get missed due to how bad some of Shiba and Ezra misses were, but some of Arthars defensive efforts were beyond terrible.

I always think fullbacks cop so much stick for defence and sometimes it is very unjustified when the line in front of them has crumbled and they are trying to pick one of 3 players to take or go for the ball etc, but some of Jesse's missed tackles he unfortunately had great opportunity to make better contact and was extremely weak, or just completely missed his mark.

Thought he was serviceable in attack, and again the line in front of him folded too often, but if he is going to be playing 1 for a few more weeks we are going to need him to up his defence big time.

 

[Rally Towel]

How sad are the cowboys tbh... you'd think they won the gf. They have made FIFTEEN posts about the win against a 3rd string spine who lost 2 hookers and still needed a help from the video ref to win it with 2 mins to go hahahaha Ltd is this, 1998 or some shit? You beat us in a game in APRIL under these conditions ffs. Sad as it means that much, I dont think the broncos posted thay much after the premiership after 19 years...

We'd be crowing in their shoes too.

No sense in being salty mate.

 

[broncos4life]

We'd be crowing in their shoes too.

No sense in being salty mate.

I would really ****ing hope we wouldn't be and anyone that would should be told to grow the **** up.

 

[Santa]

Don’t know if it was mentioned in the live thread but what the hell is the go with our defensive line not moving forward and just letting the Cows runners come to them?
Just like the bad old days.

Can't even blame fatigue - line was slow from the first set. Some good scramble was the only thing that saved us from the score being much worse.

Disappointing when we compare our defence to the 2 weeks prior. After watching the Tigers run over the Knights today, we really need to fix this up soon.

 

[BRC088]

Friendly reminder that this contact is worthy of a sin bin and 2-week suspension:
View attachment 38731

If Patty lowered his point of contact any more he'd be crawling, he's doing exactly what PVL said to do during an interview when all this rubbish came into the game. I'd love to see the stats on head knocks pre and post this rule, feels like there's a lot more head knocks in todays game, with a serious up tick in ones where the defender who is affected.

 

[Sproj]

If Patty lowered his point of contact any more he'd be crawling, he's doing exactly what PVL said to do during an interview when all this rubbish came into the game. I'd love to see the stats on head knocks pre and post this rule, feels like there's a lot more head knocks in todays game, with a serious up tick in ones where the defender who is affected.

It would probably be hard to quantify now though because there is so much diving. What is actually a head knock and what is not?

 

[Brocko]

It still just baffles me that this Drinkwater one is the one getting all the attention.

I don't like this call either, BUT at least there was SOME contact that you could argue is why a penalty was given. Karapani is in some way, disrupted by what Drinkwater did. Shit rule, absolutely, no argument, but there's at least some contact.

The Shiba one... there's nothing at all?

 

[Dexter]

It still just baffles me that this Drinkwater one is the one getting all the attention.

I don't like this call either, BUT at least there was SOME contact that you could argue is why a penalty was given. Karapani is in some way, disrupted by what Drinkwater did. Shit rule, absolutely, no argument, but there's at least some contact.

The Shiba one... there's nothing at all?

As I said in a previous post that doesn't fly.
The players became expert at pretending to contest and making contact. That's why the rule was made it was impossible for the ref to decide intent.
It's the same as high contact. Doesn't matter if it's an accident if it's high its a penalty no matter how soft it is.

 

[Brocko]

As I said in a previous post that doesn't fly.
The players became expert at pretending to contest and making contact. That's why the rule was made it was impossible for the ref to decide intent.
It's the same as high contact. Doesn't matter if it's an accident if it's high its a penalty no matter how soft it is.

So are you happy with the Drinky penalty, and not happy with ours? Because even if Shiba was pretending to contest he is 2m away when ball is dropped?

Contests should just be contests, piss off with this shit thats bordering on calling a fair catch.

 

[Bucking Beads]

It still just baffles me that this Drinkwater one is the one getting all the attention.

I don't like this call either, BUT at least there was SOME contact that you could argue is why a penalty was given. Karapani is in some way, disrupted by what Drinkwater did. Shit rule, absolutely, no argument, but there's at least some contact.

The Shiba one... there's nothing at all?

It doesn't baffle me at all tbh. Sports media is just like the mainstream media. Telling us lies to distract us from just how bad the truth is.

 

[Dexter]

So are you happy with the Drinky penalty, and not happy with ours? Because even if Shiba was pretending to contest he is 2m away when ball is dropped?

Contests should just be contests, piss off with this shit thats bordering on calling a fair catch.

No, the drinky call was correct he made contact while turning away.

The Shiba call was 100% wrong.
Chester dropped it cold, TRY Broncos.

Does anyone know if the disruptor rule goes both ways?
If the attacking team puts up a bomb and gets under it first, attempts a catch but the defending side jumps and pulls out is it a penalty to the attacking side if they drop it?

 

[Foordy]

Does anyone know if the disruptor rule goes both ways?
If the attacking team puts up a bomb and gets under it first, attempts a catch but the defending side jumps and pulls out is it a penalty to the attacking side if they drop it?

you could argue that would be an escort

 

[Brocko]

No, the drinky call was correct he made contact while turning away.

The Shiba call was 100% wrong.
Chester dropped it cold, TRY Broncos.

Cool, so we're basically on the same page. Drinky one getting all the attention is still odd to me because I can at least understand why that penalty was given, even if I dislike the rule. He turned and impacted the ability of his opponent being able to catch the ball.

The Shiba one is a completely nonsense decision that to me, cannot be defended.

 

[LittleDavey]

If Patty lowered his point of contact any more he'd be crawling, he's doing exactly what PVL said to do during an interview when all this rubbish came into the game. I'd love to see the stats on head knocks pre and post this rule, feels like there's a lot more head knocks in todays game, with a serious up tick in ones where the defender who is affected.

Well the stats at the judiciary don't look great based purely on last weekend's action:

Is this really what the game has become? Note I no longer watch much other than the Broncos games, so have zero idea if any of these were warranted or not. However, the glaring omission is Neame's shoulder into Willison's jaw. When they are charging anyone and everyone like the above, how the **** does that get missed?

WHERE IS THE CONSISTENCY???

 

[broncos4life]

Cool, so we're basically on the same page. Drinky one getting all the attention is still odd to me because I can at least understand why that penalty was given, even if I dislike the rule. He turned and impacted the ability of his opponent being able to catch the ball.

The Shiba one is a completely nonsense decision that to me, cannot be defended.

Yep the Shiba one can’t be defended which is why they aren’t even talking about it.

 

[BroncsFan]

It still just baffles me that this Drinkwater one is the one getting all the attention.

I don't like this call either, BUT at least there was SOME contact that you could argue is why a penalty was given. Karapani is in some way, disrupted by what Drinkwater did. Shit rule, absolutely, no argument, but there's at least some contact.

The Shiba one... there's nothing at all?

I think there's confusion around what the actual disruptor rule is.

I think it was originally brought in because guys like Gutho were flying through contests and just waving their arm across the catcher's line of sight before the ball even got there... and it was putting fullbacks off.

Gutho would get there and jump way too early... so he wasn't ever competing for the ball he was just there to distract the fullbacks, etc.

They've decided to expand on it by adding terminology around 'legitimately contesting the ball' and they've decided that someone is legitimately contesting if they go with two hands and are watching the ball... but that's just where NRL try to create a black and white rule, which coaches then exploit to the nth degree. Robbo talking about him "used to knowing what the rule is" suggests that he was probably part of the rules committee and came up the with the stupid criteria in the first place, so now he coaches his players to exploit the criteria that he probably came up with.

What Drinkwater did probably wasn't a disruptor by the original definition, but he did impact Karapani from catching the ball... so it doesn't even need to be classified as a disruptor, because there's other rules around making illegal/early contact... It's the same as when players just run into catchers before the ball has even got there... they're illegally preventing the player from catching it.

If Gutho was running through and just knocking the fullbacks arms before the ball got there he would've been penalised without the disruptor needing to ever exist.

It wasn't a legitimate contest, because Drinkwater is no longer competing for the ball if he has turned his back to it... he then makes contact with Karapani before the ball gets there. Penalty... easy.

Brandy just comes up with some bullshit about "oh... Drinky is just trying to protect himself" because Karp has basically jumped over the top of him. Should that mean that any player can just jump into Coates legs when he comes in knees first AFL style?? ... **** no because that shit is illegal.

For Toia I'd have to look at the footage closer... the main thing with Toia to me and it potentially being an actual disruptor is that he's so far wide of where the ball eventually lands. If he was actually watching the ball all the way into the contest then why the **** is he 1m wide of where it is and stretching out to get it.

Was he actually wanting to compete or was he just 'disguising' it in accordance with those stupid black and white rules that NRL/Robinson put on it... he sprinted down there and jumps at the last minute to 'compete'. They were talking about it a couple weeks ago with parra players standing around with their hands in the air to pretend like they're 'competing' to the letter of the law.

The ref (I think it was Toddles?) had the whistle up to his mouth when the initial contest happened, but then let play run through. I think he was going to call it a disruptor because Toia wasn't really near the contest, so I was surprised he even sent it up as a try.

The media... thanks to Brandy's comms again... are all focussing on the contact... because the bunker only pointed to the contact... so now everyone thinks disruptors are all about contacting the catcher, which they are to an extent, but it's also if you're not legitimately competing for the ball and just distracting the catcher (i.e. the original Gutho component).

For the Shiba one he's watching and wants to compete on the ball, but he goes up too early and mis-judges it anyway... it's most likely that he was weaving in and out of defenders and the kick wasn't high enough... but he doesn't even get to the contest unlike Toia above or in the way Gutho used to go through contests too early.

It's like the reddit post where they talk about anyone getting near a contest is now a penalty for baulking.

The definition that the NRL need to define is 'what is a contest'... if someone doesn't even get to the contest like Shiba then is that meant to be a penalty... they wouldn't even end up being between the catcher's line of sight and the ball (the Gutho rule)... they're just on the periphery which is the reddit post about literally anyone just running towards a contest should be considered a disruptor.

 

[Brocko]

I think there's confusion around what the actual disruptor rule is.

I think it was originally brought in because guys like Gutho were flying through contests and just waving their arm across the catcher's line of sight before the ball even got there... and it was putting fullbacks off.

Gutho would get there and jump way too early... so he wasn't ever competing for the ball he was just there to distract the fullbacks, etc.

They've decided to expand on it by adding terminology around 'legitimately contesting the ball' and they've decided that someone is legitimately contesting if they go with two hands and are watching the ball... but that's just where NRL try to create a black and white rule, which coaches then exploit to the nth degree. Robbo talking about him "used to knowing what the rule is" suggests that he was probably part of the rules committee and came up the with the stupid criteria in the first place, so now he coaches his players to exploit the criteria that he probably came up with.

What Drinkwater did probably wasn't a disruptor by the original definition, but he did impact Karapani from catching the ball... so it doesn't even need to be classified as a disruptor, because there's other rules around making illegal/early contact... It's the same as when players just run into catchers before the ball has even got there... they're illegally preventing the player from catching it.

If Gutho was running through and just knocking the fullbacks arms before the ball got there he would've been penalised without the disruptor needing to ever exist.

It wasn't a legitimate contest, because Drinkwater is no longer competing for the ball if he has turned his back to it... he then makes contact with Karapani before the ball gets there. Penalty... easy.

Brandy just comes up with some bullshit about "oh... Drinky is just trying to protect himself" because Karp has basically jumped over the top of him. Should that mean that any player can just jump into Coates legs when he comes in knees first AFL style?? ... **** no because that shit is illegal.

For Toia I'd have to look at the footage closer... the main thing with Toia to me and it potentially being an actual disruptor is that he's so far wide of where the ball eventually lands. If he was actually watching the ball all the way into the contest then why the **** is he 1m wide of where it is and stretching out to get it.

Was he actually wanting to compete or was he just 'disguising' it in accordance with those stupid black and white rules that NRL/Robinson put on it... he sprinted down there and jumps at the last minute to 'compete'. They were talking about it a couple weeks ago with parra players standing around with their hands in the air to pretend like they're 'competing' to the letter of the law.

The ref (I think it was Toddles?) had the whistle up to his mouth when the initial contest happened, but then let play run through. I think he was going to call it a disruptor because Toia wasn't really near the contest, so I was surprised he even sent it up as a try.

The media... thanks to Brandy's comms again... are all focussing on the contact... because the bunker only pointed to the contact... so now everyone thinks disruptors are all about contacting the catcher, which they are to an extent, but it's also if you're not legitimately competing for the ball and just distracting the catcher (i.e. the original Gutho component).

For the Shiba one he's watching and wants to compete on the ball, but he goes up too early and mis-judges it anyway... it's most likely that he was weaving in and out of defenders and the kick wasn't high enough... but he doesn't even get to the contest unlike Toia above or in the way Gutho used to go through contests too early.

It's like the reddit post where they talk about anyone getting near a contest is now a penalty for baulking.

The definition that the NRL need to define is 'what is a contest'... if someone doesn't even get to the contest like Shiba then is that meant to be a penalty... they wouldn't even end up being between the catcher's line of sight and the ball (the Gutho rule)... they're just on the periphery which is the reddit post about literally anyone just running towards a contest should be considered a disruptor.

The thing is though, the NRL have doubled down, and said only the Drinky and Toia ones were wrong, and Shiba was a right call as he had no intention of making a catch?

Now are they just covering their ass because that was a result definer in terms of points?

Or are we looking at something completely different?

 

[LittleDavey]

What messes with my head - and confuses me even more that no-one is talking about Shiba's anymore - is that if he's head down and smashes the catcher into the turf when he gets there instead, because it's after the attempted catch, it's a Cowboys knock on and Broncos ball.

But instead he was trying to get there to compete the catch, didn't quite make it and pulled out...despite being literally metres away at the time of the defender catching (and dropping) the ball...why is the call any different?

So that makes no sense at all. Even with the disruptor bullshit, his presence near to and approaching the catcher at the time of attempted catch was penalised. Literally, for what? He's allowed to be in the vicinity, he's allowed to make a play at the ball and/or the Cowboys player. There was minimal contact on the Cow in the air, certainly nothing dangerous. The ball was dropped before he got there because he was late.

Was he penalised for being in the air at the time instead of on the ground...? I still don't understand and none of the commentary around the other incidents from the weekend have clarified this particular one AT ALL because it's so totally different.

**** this game, honestly. So simple and made so ****ing complicated for no reason.