Round 6 Discussion

Penrith rort it but it’s crickets. The Roosters though are on the receiving end, well now it’s a big issue.

I am happy it being looked at because what the Storm did was pathetic and they do it every single week but nothing will come of it because Bellamy is scary when he’s angry.
 
Kimlo said:
Honestly, I think at some point I'm going to be tempted start a website purely to track HIA use by teams. It's a fucking rort. For a competition that's supposed to have competitive integrity, turning a blind eye to the stinking fucking obvious is borderline criminal given the stakes at play.
Click to expand...
How do I help fund this 😂 I’ll do anything to expose these fuckwits.

It’s either you get the players to sign a waiver and the fans are aware of it to stop the outrage or you go all in.

All that’s happening now is “specific” teams picking and choosing when to use it to their advantage.

20k fine ain’t gonna cut it, that’s loose change.
 
Galah said:
How do I help fund this 😂 I’ll do anything to expose these fuckwits.

It’s either you get the players to sign a waiver and the fans are aware of it to stop the outrage or you go all in.

All that’s happening now is “specific” teams picking and choosing when to use it to their advantage.

20k fine ain’t gonna cut it, that’s loose change.
Click to expand...
The easy way to have this issue addressed is for the broncos to start taking advantage of it.
 
Big Pete said:
Walker didn't gain an advantage from the play so they took it back to Bromwich's off-side.
Click to expand...

Dont know the rules mate, just never seen that happen before. From my personal perspective, Walker ran with the ball then tried a kick in an attempt to break through and score a try. He took the advantage the ref gave him imo. Probably not the rules, but as soon as you instigate an attacking play then i feel thats advantage taken.
 
GKDonkey said:
If someone can be arsed, they should look through the records and see which team gets concussed the most😂
Click to expand...
Kimlo said:
Honestly, I think at some point I'm going to be tempted start a website purely to track HIA use by teams. It's a fucking rort. For a competition that's supposed to have competitive integrity, turning a blind eye to the stinking fucking obvious is borderline criminal given the stakes at play.
Click to expand...
For real, this would be one of the better ways to fix it. If the NRL have the data (surely they keep track of it like injuries?) it should be made public right now.
 
Wolfie said:
Dont know the rules mate, just never seen that happen before. From my personal perspective, Walker ran with the ball then tried a kick in an attempt to break through and score a try. He took the advantage the ref gave him imo. Probably not the rules, but as soon as you instigate an attacking play then i feel thats advantage taken.
Click to expand...
It's quite obvious that if there is an ambiguous slant to this rule then it needs to be rectified immediately by the NRL with a clarifying directive. Will it happen? I doubt it. V'landy and his brigade only make the rules up on the fly; corrections only happen after the NRL favourite teams kick up a stink.

Hypothetically speaking if Walker's kick paid dividends and resulted in him playing on to score a try they would not have called it back. So in effect - he took his advantage. The fact his execution was sadly lacking and he panicked should not then allow the ref to call it back and give him another go to get it right.

It's mind-numbingly stupid to rule otherwise. But - Roosters.

On Thursday night Kevvie could have acted dumb and simply asked at the presser how the HIA works? As Penrith were able to make almost double our interchanges. He could have also asked what constitutes a head-high so he can explain it to Tommy Deardon. The one genuine opportunity for us to make a free sub and have access to the 18th man (if needed) and we never even got a penalty. Yet, the next day Momorovski is facing a three game ban for the tackle. All that does is advantage teams who are about to play Penrith. The Broncos are again left holding the baby. Was the bunker instructed to take no action as well? It was replayed 3 times.

Last night you heard the bunker categorically say 'the attacker has no eyes for the ball' during a contested bomb and so he ruled in the defending team's favour. When Corey Oates was backed into by Staines he too had 'no eyes for the ball' in fact Staines' action was fully reckless and dangerous as big Oatsey came down pretty badly and could have easily broke his neck, but it was play on and Penrith get six more and score. Why such glaring disparity??
 
Wolfie said:
Dont know the rules mate, just never seen that happen before. From my personal perspective, Walker ran with the ball then tried a kick in an attempt to break through and score a try. He took the advantage the ref gave him imo. Probably not the rules, but as soon as you instigate an attacking play then i feel thats advantage taken.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

Plus the 'advantage' you gain is a new set, shouldn't get a do over if you blow it first tackle in desperation.
 
Jedhead said:
It's quite obvious that if there is an ambiguous slant to this rule then it needs to be rectified immediately by the NRL with a clarifying directive. Will it happen? I doubt it. V'landy and his brigade only make the rules up on the fly; corrections only happen after the NRL favourite teams kick up a stink.

Hypothetically speaking if Walker's kick paid dividends and resulted in him playing on to score a try they would not have called it back. So in effect - he took his advantage. The fact his execution was sadly lacking and he panicked should not then allow the ref to call it back and give him another go to get it right.

It's mind-numbingly stupid to rule otherwise. But - Roosters.

On Thursday night Kevvie could have acted dumb and simply asked at the presser how the HIA works? As Penrith were able to make almost double our interchanges. He could have also asked what constitutes a head-high so he can explain it to Tommy Deardon. The one genuine opportunity for us to make a free sub and have access to the 18th man (if needed) and we never even got a penalty. Yet, the next day Momorovski is facing a three day ban for the tackle. All that does is advantage teams who are about to play Penrith. The Broncos are again left holding the baby. Was the bunker instructed to take no action as well? It was replayed 3 times.

Last night you heard the bunker categorically say 'the attacker has no eyes for the ball' during a contested bomb and so he ruled in the defending team's favour. When Corey Oates was backed into by Staines he too had 'no eyes for the ball' in fact Staines' action was fully reckless and dangerous as big Oatsey came down pretty badly and could have easily broke his neck, but it was play on and Penrith get six more and score. Why such glaring disparity??
Click to expand...

Because **** the Broncos, that's why.

It's the unspoken ethos of the NRL.
 
Galah said:
How do I help fund this 😂 I’ll do anything to expose these fuckwits.

It’s either you get the players to sign a waiver and the fans are aware of it to stop the outrage or you go all in.

All that’s happening now is “specific” teams picking and choosing when to use it to their advantage.

20k fine ain’t gonna cut it, that’s loose change.
Click to expand...
Send me 10k and that should cover start up costs. I kid.

I'll start this website sometime over the next week or two, and I want to integrate some kind of chat box where people can send me tips for any HIA's they see.

I reckon if I can get this in a format where it's easy to read, and track how teams are using it, it might gather media attention, because right now it seems like the wankers that are called sports journalists ignore this issue and I'm bloody well sick of it. We reduce interchanges to introduce fatigue, along with a bunch of BS new age rules, only for teams like Melbourne to completely rort what is a player welfare move, to go back to having 12-14 interchanges a game.
 
Wolfie said:
Dont know the rules mate, just never seen that happen before. From my personal perspective, Walker ran with the ball then tried a kick in an attempt to break through and score a try. He took the advantage the ref gave him imo. Probably not the rules, but as soon as you instigate an attacking play then i feel thats advantage taken.
Click to expand...
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head but I've seen it happen a few times. Especially when it's a situation where the set restart was only just given which it was in the Bromwich case. Walker bumps off Bromwich, ref signals set restart right as Walker is looking for space to put through for a kick since it's the last. Since Walker didn't gain an advantage from the play they went back to the original infringement. You see it happen in the ruck where the ref will call a set restart and then if there's a mistake they'll call the penalty.
 
So who's the best fullback in the game??

I've always had Turbo ahead of Teddy because he brings ball playing along with the great running game
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 1,094
1:34:16
NRL Round 1, 2001 - North Queensland Cowboys vs Brisbane Broncos
View full media list »

Active Now

Total: 197 (members: 8, guests: 189)
Robots: 767
Back
Top