POST GAME Round 6 - Broncos vs Roosters

[broncos4life]

I love this mentality that has slipped into the NRL that penalties are to be applied on a time and equality basis, rather than when they are or aren't deserved.

 

[Foordy]

Yeah, it would also be nice to now why JWH wasn't penalised even though he spent most of the second half so offside it looked like we had 14 players on the field

add that to the fact that JWH should have been penalised for a flop on Thaiday or the fact that JWH was constantly trying to start a fight with Thaiday ... he just didn't have the balls to actually throw a punch

 

[Morkel]

I love this mentality that has slipped into the NRL that penalties are to be applied on a time and equality basis, rather than when they are or aren't deserved.

Exactly this.

 

[Astro]

It's pretty rubbish that they stop blowing penalties past a certain point so the count doesn't look ridiculous. Would anyone be upset with a 20-2 penalty count if it's justified and the calls are consistent?

Consistency is what bugs me the most. if it was a penalty in the first half why not the second?!

 

[theshed]

I can't remember the exact word that was used but after a period with a lot of penalties the telecast picked up the Refs talking right after a penalty was blown and one ref seemed to be implying to the other that he should cut back on calling them.

I found it really odd to hear.

 

[bb_gun]

I can't remember the exact word that was used but after a period with a lot of penalties the telecast picked up the Refs talking right after a penalty was blown and one ref seemed to be implying to the other that he should cut back on calling them.

I found it really odd to hear.

I think they were saying "be more selective" or something similar to that, it was a little odd.

 

[Huge]

Well I will never give a shit about us winning the penalty count because I remember the game where we played the perfect team...we never received a penalty in the entire game and they received ten !!!!!

 

[broncos4life]

add that to the fact that JWH should have been penalised for a flop on Thaiday or the fact that JWH was constantly trying to start a fight with Thaiday ... he just didn't have the balls to actually throw a punch

Ridculous isn't it

 

[Foordy]

Well I will never give a shit about us winning the penalty count because I remember the game where we played the perfect team...we never received a penalty in the entire game and they received ten !!!!!

IIRC, that was a finals game against the Roosters

 

[Huge]

IIRC, that was a finals game against the Roosters

Don't know that it was finals Foordy but maybe, I'll have to look it up, you could be right. Either way, it still makes me cranky and it was compounded by the fact that not one of the footy shows made virtually any reference to the stunning fact that it had never happened before and it's never happened since. If it occurred these days to say the Bulldogs ,there would be riots.

 

[Foordy]

Don't know that it was finals Foordy but maybe, I'll have to look it up, you could be right. Either way, it still makes me cranky and it was compounded by the fact that not one of the footy shows made virtually any reference to the stunning fact that it had never happened before and it's never happened since. If it occurred these days to say the Bulldogs ,there would be riots.

The game I'm thinking of is the 2002 prelim final. The Roosters beat us 16-12. I'd have to look up the stats to see if I'm right about the penalty count.

But you are right, Bulldogs fans would certainly riot if it happened to them. Hell, they even riot when the ref gets the call right.

 

[theshed]

I think they were saying "be more selective" or something similar to that, it was a little odd.

Yep that te exact word they used. You pinned it!

 

[lynx000]

The game I'm thinking of is the 2002 prelim final. The Roosters beat us 16-12. I'd have to look up the stats to see if I'm right about the penalty count.

But you are right, Bulldogs fans would certainly riot if it happened to them. Hell, they even riot when the ref gets the call right.

Penalty count was 8-2 in favour of the Rorters

 

[Big Pete]

Huge is referring to the Round 14 1996 game against Sydney City.

The same game where Andrew Gee was penalised for not tapping the ball.

The penalty count read 9-0 Roosters.

 

[Harry Sack]

Regarding Thaiday and Glenn. Credit where it's due, these two have been immense in the last few weeks and have consistently been involved in some crucial plays that have swung momentum our way. Outstanding effort. My question to the forum is this: How much do you put it down to them being used more effectively this season and how much is down to them them playing for a contract? 50/50? 90/10? Is it still too early to tell? Keen to hear your thoughts.

These are two players that Bennett has publicly called out to lift and they are rising to the challenge, no doubts there, but it's funny how off-contract players tend to do that.

Interesting question. Thaiday always steps up a gear around contract time but then again, Bennett knows him quite well and no doubt knows how to get the best out of him by pushing the right buttons. When it comes to Glenn, I maintain he's improved simply because he's getting better ball. The weight loss also seems to have helped.

I love this mentality that has slipped into the NRL that penalties are to be applied on a time and equality basis, rather than when they are or aren't deserved.

Exactly.

 

[Splinter]

I can't remember the exact word that was used but after a period with a lot of penalties the telecast picked up the Refs talking right after a penalty was blown and one ref seemed to be implying to the other that he should cut back on calling them.

I found it really odd to hear.

You should where the refs ears at the game, I do. You hear these comments from time to time. I have also heard the main ref say we will have to start evening up the penalty count.
I also have a mate that has a job in AFL working in the game side of things. He sits in with the refs at halftime and says it is an absolute disgrace what is spoken about. They are virtually pre determining which teams need to watched for free kicks in the second half and not actually umpiring the game as it occurs after halftime

 

[uptheguts]

Why? You clearly see the chook pushing the ball out of Kodi's hands, at which point it becomes a live ball. Kodi then grounds it with his chest, while copping a hit to the head... should've even been a possible 8 point try!

I agree with this summation. This is near identical to the Thaiday try disallowed by video refs in Origin 2 last year . We really need a clarification on this by the head ref . As the skill of defenders to find a way to stop tries continue to reach new levels , this question is bound to come up again and again.The video refs need to have a clear rule to go by which includes all the permeatations eg grounding on loose ball by torso only , regather before grounding,or regather when simultaneously grounding. Does the video ref have to decide the whether the dislodging it was intentional or unintentional? I think it makes a difference when the ball is knocked out by a hand as compared to a shoulder. The more you think about it the more complicated it gets.

 

[Morkel]

You should where the refs ears at the game, I do. You hear these comments from time to time. I have also heard the main ref say we will have to start evening up the penalty count.
I also have a mate that has a job in AFL working in the game side of things. He sits in with the refs at halftime and says it is an absolute disgrace what is spoken about. They are virtually pre determining which teams need to watched for free kicks in the second half and not actually umpiring the game as it occurs after halftime

This is probably not as bad as it sounds. I could understand if they're discussing the teams and one says "I think Team X is pushing Rule X a bit too far, so look out for that and penalise them if they need to peg it back a bit". At least that is responding to actual indiscretions.

The other situation though, where they discuss being more moderate with penalties, or even worse yet, talk about evening up the count, that's just bullshit. Being impartial doesn't mean giving two teams the same number of penalties, it means treating their actions the same, and if one team is going outside the rules more than the other, than one team deserves more penalties. And if it's a penalty in the first half, it's a penalty in the second half. I'm sorry, the refs aren't there to coach the players in to cleaning up their act, or "manage" the flow of the game, starting harsh but becoming more passive to open the game up. They are there to blow the fucking whistle if a team infringes. Even if they just want to be perceived at being impartial (which would be a classic Greenberg directive), then they're fooling themselves because Rugby League fans are just as passionate about teams they hate as they are about those that they support, so thinking that fans will look at a count, see it roughly even, and call the refs fair just shows you how out of touch they are.

I agree with this summation. This is near identical to the Thaiday try disallowed by video refs in Origin 2 last year . We really need a clarification on this by the head ref . As the skill of defenders to find a way to stop tries continue to reach new levels , this question is bound to come up again and again.The video refs need to have a clear rule to go by which includes all the permeatations eg grounding on loose ball by torso only , regather before grounding,or regather when simultaneously grounding. Does the video ref have to decide the whether the dislodging it was intentional or unintentional? I think it makes a difference when the ball is knocked out by a hand as compared to a shoulder. The more you think about it the more complicated it gets.

Unfortunately, the NRL are only interested in explaining their position on (A) things they can justify as being correct, or (B) absolute howlers that didn't affect the outcome of the game. Did they ever admit they got the Foran Hand Of God call wrong? No, they just changed the rules, saying that the call was correct as per the old rules, but needed to be changed to prevent it again (but really, changed the rules so that they can rule it as whatever the **** they want and it's still "correct"). Would they have gone to all the trouble of explaining the rules on the Souths Bulldogs penalty if they realised they got it wrong? Never. Did they admit that Queensland were robbed by the Thaiday no-try ruling? Nope. And now they know that they're stuck with that interpretation, and will continue to rule it that way, lest they admit the backlash from up here was justified all along. It'll only change when it potentially means that one of the Darling clubs might lose a game, they'll finally call it correct and rule it as a strip so play-on (cue Lyon with the ensuing torso-try), and then they'll tell the media that it was a strip and they did on fact call it correct (and ignore they've been incorrect up until that point).