POST GAME Round 6 - Broncos vs Roosters

[uptheguts]

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 ****ing 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.



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 anfairly cynical viewpoint (but probably correct). It's very annoying to think that with the quality of the slow mo replays the video refs can't make a 100% technically correct decision if everything is in clear view.

I just don't know what kind of specifics the NRL rule book goes into on this situation. If recent years are anything to go by,the video refs will probably have a big hand in deciding this years origin. They stuff things up frequently when the rule book is clear on a situation, but if the rule book is a bit hazy , we have no chance.d they did on fact call it correct (and ignore they've been incorrect up until that point).

 

[Art Vandelay]

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.

The rule that a ball that is dislodged/punched out by a defender is ruled to have been knocked on by the defending team is the worst rule currently implemented in the NRL. Never mind the argument that the onus of ball security should be much higher than it is now, it still makes no sense from a technical standpoint. In 95% of these instances the last body part to touch the ball before possession is lost is still the ball carrier's arm - the defender's contact with the ball is what initiates the ball's downward/upward trajectory, but the actual time in contact with the ball is brief and easily outlived by the ball's contact with the ball carrier's arm on it's way out of their grasp. To chain that ruling with the second worst rule in the NRL (the torso grounding) to come up with a try is a bridge too far, even if it is consistent with other (abysmal) interpretations.

 

[uptheguts]

A fairly cynical viewpoint (but probably correct). It's very annoying to think that with the quality of the slow mo replays the video refs can't make a 100% technically correct decision if everything is in clear view.

I just don't know what kind of specifics the NRL rule book goes into on this situation. If recent years are anything to go by,the video refs will probably have a big hand in deciding this years origin. They stuff things up frequently when the rule book is clear on a situation, but if the rule book is a bit hazy , we have no chance.

Sorry about the stuff up. This was meant to be attached to Morkels reply (above)

 

[CaptainHook]

I just don't know what kind of specifics the NRL rule book goes into on this situation. If recent years are anything to go by,the video refs will probably have a big hand in deciding this years origin. They stuff things up frequently when the rule book is clear on a situation, but if the rule book is a bit hazy , we have no chance.

I agree with the sentiment but I don't think it holds up on closer scrutiny. The Thaiday no-try was a big decision but I was fine with it. More often than not, the attacking player will be slapped with a loose carry. I think they're pretty consistent in that area.

I would argue what cost QLD more was the decision to take the penalty goals. It stunk more of a "trying to not to lose" mentality than a "let's go for the win" one.

If a team is switched on and is ready to play, a lop-sided penalty count won't get in their way. They'll get the win.

 

[rod78]

Certain coaches have worked it out and in the first 20 min they give away as many penalties as possible in good field position (in the opposition 20) while the defence is fresh. This way in the second half the penalty count gets evened up and the refs try give their side the catch ups in better field position and at more crucial time. I would rather have 5 penalties in the second half than the first.

 

[Huge]

Whatever their strategy is regarding penalties it hardly seems like they are deriving any great advantage. Not if we consider where they have finished and their overall results. I am happy that indiscretions can give us 6 points or at least 2 at a time. I agree they do use the penalties as part of a game plan but really, it's up to the attacking side to capitalise. It is after all a penalty imposed and a failure to capitalise is the fault of the attack.

 

[uptheguts]

Certain coaches have worked it out and in the first 20 min they give away as many penalties as possible in good field position (in the opposition 20) while the defence is fresh. This way in the second half the penalty count gets evened up and the refs try give their side the catch ups in better field position and at more crucial time. I would rather have 5 penalties in the second half than the first.

I agree. South Sydney are masters at this. I think part of the strategy is to wear the refs down to the-point when they are sick of giving penalties . Especially noticeable when Souths are defending their line when they really try to slow down the play the ball and the backs are very often off side( in front of try line) and the refs just let it ride most of the time.

 

[Morkel]

Whatever their strategy is regarding penalties it hardly seems like they are deriving any great advantage. Not if we consider where they have finished and their overall results. I am happy that indiscretions can give us 6 points or at least 2 at a time. I agree they do use the penalties as part of a game plan but really, it's up to the attacking side to capitalise. It is after all a penalty imposed and a failure to capitalise is the fault of the attack.

The reason it is difficult for teams to capitalise is because the break in game time allows them to reset their defence.

 

[Rally Towel]

The reason it is difficult for teams to capitalise is because the break in game time allows them to reset their defence.

This is why I wasn't adverse to us taking the 2 on the night. It was inevitable they would concede penalties on the line in this fashion. While they're fresh, cracking the reset defensive line is a big ask. However, each time we took the two, that was guaranteed points, and straight thereafter they're back to making tackles.

I wouldn't be an advocate of this tactic against a lot of teams but I felt it was right for the situation.

 

[Morkel]

This is why I wasn't adverse to us taking the 2 on the night. It was inevitable they would concede penalties on the line in this fashion. While they're fresh, cracking the reset defensive line is a big ask. However, each time we took the two, that was guaranteed points, and straight thereafter they're back to making tackles.

I wouldn't be an advocate of this tactic against a lot of teams but I felt it was right for the situation.

For sure. In fact it's probably only applicable to the Roosters. But the tactic was spot-on.

 

[Foordy]

This is why I wasn't adverse to us taking the 2 on the night. It was inevitable they would concede penalties on the line in this fashion. While they're fresh, cracking the reset defensive line is a big ask. However, each time we took the two, that was guaranteed points, and straight thereafter they're back to making tackles.

I wouldn't be an advocate of this tactic against a lot of teams but I felt it was right for the situation.

For sure. In fact it's probably only applicable to the Roosters. But the tactic was spot-on.

Agreed ... part of the Roosters game plan appears to be to deliberately conceed penalties on their own line then back their defence to keep the opposition out.

We nulified that by ensuring when they did, we came away with points. Good plan on our part

 

[Super Freak]

Roosters were doing it on purpose because they knew we would play it safe.

They had confidence in their ability to hold us out and break our defense and if SKD didn't rush up, Glenn doesn't get one on one with the defender and it's likely Glenn wouldn't have scored.

We got lucky. It's not a tactic I want to see too often.

I want Broncos to do what Roosters did to us in the lead up to the Maloney try.

 

[Foordy]

Roosters were doing it on purpose because they knew we would play it safe.

They had confidence in their ability to hold us out and break our defense and if SKD didn't rush up, Glenn doesn't get one on one with the defender and it's likely Glenn wouldn't have scored.

We got lucky. It's not a tactic I want to see too often.

I want Broncos to do what Roosters did to us in the lead up to the Maloney try.

The Rooster didn't just play that way against us... They have a habit of deliberately conceeding penalties when defending their line, then backing their defence to hold out the opposition once they have been able to set their defensive line.

 

[broncos4life]

Roosters were doing it on purpose because they knew we would play it safe.

They had confidence in their ability to hold us out and break our defense and if SKD didn't rush up, Glenn doesn't get one on one with the defender and it's likely Glenn wouldn't have scored.

We got lucky. It's not a tactic I want to see too often.

I want Broncos to do what Roosters did to us in the lead up to the Maloney try.

Well they obviously think that every team will play it safe for every year that Robinson has been coach

 

[1910]

The Rooster didn't just play that way against us... They have a habit of deliberately conceeding penalties when defending their line, then backing their defence to hold out the opposition once they have been able to set their defensive line.

Yeah, Storm do it too.

Back themselves to defend for 18 tackles if they have to, or you can just come away with two points.

 

[Big Pete]

Wayne learned a lesson from that 2013 game against the Roosters where the Knights received all those penalties, tried to score and ended up settling for 2 when it became clear that they were taking the piss.

It hurt them then, so you may as well just take the two on the first go and move on. Don't give the Roosters an ego boost and don't get caught up in the emotion.

Personally, I didn't like the first kick for penalty. But the second happened after everyone rushed in and I thought it was important we just cooled our heads a bit. Better to take that 4 point lead, then get potentially smashed and reward them.

 

[CaptainHook]

Personally, I didn't like the first kick for penalty. But the second happened after everyone rushed in and I thought it was important we just cooled our heads a bit. Better to take that 4 point lead, then get potentially smashed and reward them.

I agree but there's very little difference in a 2-0 or 4-0 lead. It showed when the Roosters scored and were able to skip out in front. It happened in Origin 2 last year as well. I also don't like it because we have Anthony Milford, one of the most dynamic, attacking players in the game, and our halves are also struggling for cohesion as well as quality kicking. When we have genuine opportunites in the opposition half we should be looking to work on our attack - not take penalty goals.

 

[Big Pete]

Normally I'd agree but on both those occasions, I liked the move.

Origin 2 was an absolute dog-fight and unfortunately they had more fit weapons than Queensland did. The Maroons were running on empty and had little in terms of attacking fire-power so taking the conservative option while the game is filled with spoiler tactics was the right move.

There was just no accounting for the fact that we the Maroons lost both Scott and Tate along the way. Hard to recover from that on top of everything else.

Against the Roosters, as I said, on the first occasion I thought we had them on the ropes and would have liked to have seen us go for the tap and work them down the right. I didn't agree with the two then, but on the other occasion, a big bru-ha-ha had happened, players were really looking to rip in and all it would have taken is for one drop ball to completely kill the momentum. Take the two, take the emotion out of it and play on.

Smart choice and it paid off in the end as we were able to be in reach when the Broncos finally jagged their second try through sheer perseverance.