Round 6 - Tigers vs Broncos - Post Match Discussion

[rnabokov]

The Gillett love is getting out of hand.

No no no! I can assure you it's well in hand ;)

 

[Coxy]

The Gillett love is getting out of hand.

This. Very good young player. Natural class but still pretty poor at times. Long way to go for him.

 

[Ghibli]

I noticed Wallace blowing up at the end, which was fair enough for the last 10mintues.

He was blowing up at Parker and Gillett, they were both extremely lazy coming across inside and cover defence, respectively. Wallace showed how much it meant to the team that they let their line be breached.

 

[Dexter]

Funny how Gillett had no problems making an impact when he came off the bench, then he starts and his performance changes.

 

[broncos4life]

Going very well indeed. Playing half a game here and half a game there of premiership winning stuff. Perhaps struggling a little to maintain the performance for 80 mins.

A couple of slight criticisms of individuals. No biggie, but throwing it out there.

1. Is Gagai fit ? I watched Copley warm up very closely last week against the Dragons and he seemed too relaxed and not "up" for it in the slightest. He played accordingly. Tonight the same. I'd like to see more desparation from him. With Yow Yeh gone for the year, I think we need a winger with a bit more flare. That every now and then is going to provide a spark. Do something a little special.
2. I love Parker as much as the next guy. He is a great servant to our club and plays like superman on occasion. But, I think he gets in the way with his sidewinder runs when we are attacking the line from close range. I liked our backrow better when he was out injured. Sorry, but Corey is having Michael Hancock tendancies. Run straight Corey !
3. Also questioning Hannant's effectiveness. He is getting bashed backwards a lot. Not questioning his effort. He seems to be trying really hard and a couple of his chases recently have been a sight to behold. And has played a couple of good games recently. Perhaps a slight change of technique in how he hits the defensive line or something, I dunno.

Could have easily been 20+ - nil at half time tonight for the second week in a row. Going good but lets be realistic. We need to be at this part of the year. Origin to come.

Oink !

With the exception of your comments on copley I can't really agree with any of that, especially not with hannent he has been exceptional and often one of our best

 

[Foordy]

Funny how Gillett had no problems making an impact when he came off the bench, then he starts and his performance changes.

IMO, Gillett is better suited to coming of the bench, thats not to say that he is a worse player than the starting backrowers. I thonk that Parker in particular is a very important player for us, he may not be the flashiest player, but he does that hard work on and off the ball that many people don't see. Thaiday is obviously also a certain starter, being captain and one of the best second rowers in the game. that leaves one spot in the starting lineup, i like Glenn there. Gillett coming on after 20 gives the team the lift they need, ATM he is suited to being an impact player. the problem for him is at the Broncos we have such a brilliant backrow with plenty of depth.

but as i've said before Gilletts 2 worst performances of the season have been the 2 games he has started in

 

[Raw Boned Youngster]

You mean second man play?

It's a pretty glaring hole in Hoffman's game to be honest. He can't execute it at all and it's almost completely disappeared from our team. It was Karmichael's pet play and to this day I still haven't seen anyone do it as well as him - always took the right option and his ball playing skills were always massively underated in that aspect.

It's definitely something that's missing from our attack I think. We don't seem to have great sweeping backline movements any more and it a lot of it comes down to Hoffman's involvement seeing as he's the link man between the ball players and the outside backs.

Perhaps I'm being a bit critical but Hoffman still has a few strings to add to his bow, two being the second man play and support play up the middle. Fullback is such an important position, he's doing a really good job but we can still get more from him I reckon.

Hey Guys - I've been reading but not posting.
Thanks Nashy for sorting out that stuff.

That play referred to, IMO, is a Bennett play - he took it to the Dragons as well. These days, our game seems to be built on grinding enthusiasm, mobility, speed and fitness, in both attack and defence.
It's a new look for the Broncos.
Rather than looking back on how we did things in the past, maybe we should look to what's unfolding.There really is a lot to like.
That old second man play is a bit bearded now - it was a 'go to' play but I'd like to think we have moved on.

 

[simmo77]

Has anyone seen many/any set plays at training? We just never seem to pull them out. Its always try and get deep and flick it to Hodges or Gillett.

 

[mrslong]

Hey - when Matt Gillett bombed that try, did he kick a field goal? My hubby reckons he did. It came off the hands, bounced once and then he kicked it between the posts. Not sure on what the definition of a field goal is???

 

[Fozz]

It was a knock on, the ball was dead.

 

[Foordy]

they should have given him a point because of the skills he showed :smile:

 

[Coxy]

The rule is that the ball has to immediately be kicked after dropping the ball in order to constitute a field goal. It's not a FG.

Has to be intentional too

 

[Anonymous person]

Has to be intentional too

i thought that too, but looking at the international rules documents it never actually says it has to be intentional. all it says is, and i quote:

Drop Goal: means a goal scored by propelling the ball over the cross bar by drop kicking it (and is sometimes
referred to as a "Field Goal").

Drop Kick: is a kick whereby the ball is dropped from the hands (or hand) and is kicked immediately it
rebounds from the ground.

now what constitutes "immediately"? i would say gilletts kick would, as the ball hadnt even hit the top of its bouncing arc when he kicked it iirc. he obviously kicked at the ball intentionally too, even if he wasnt trying to kick it between the goal posts.

IMO it shouldve been given a drop goal. unfortunately the rules arent 100% black and white in regards to it.

 

[mrslong]

Yeah, I thought "technically everything about it was a field goal". but I wasn't sure if they had to drop the ball within a foot infront of your boot or something like that?
It just looked like an under 10s field goal attempt lol. If Benji had done it he would've got a point.

 

[Jeba]

This would be about the 8th topic where AP has shown he doesn't know what is and what isn't a knock-on.

 

[Anonymous person]

This would be about the 8th topic where AP has shown he doesn't know what is and what isn't a knock-on.

lol typical jeb. lets ignore the actual rules and just say 'you dont know the game'. figured out what a halfbacks role is yet?

yet again i refer you to the official rule book for the NRL:

http://www.cronullacaringbah.com.au/documents/InternationalLaws.pdf

under "drop goal":

DROP GOAL sometimes referred to as a Field Goal, is a goal scored
by propelling the ball on the full, over the crossbar, by
drop kicking it.

DROP KICK is a kick whereby the ball is dropped from the hands (or
hand) and is kicked immediately it rebounds from the
ground.

like i said, it all comes down to the interpretation of the word 'immediately'. the rule is NOT black and white as it should be, it does not contain the word 'deliberately' when talking about dropping the ball from the hands.

again, i dont expect you to understand why this leads many to believe it can be ruled a drop goal. my standards of what i expect you to be able to properly comprehend are near non-existent.

then again, you still believe that the ball hitting your hands, then backwards to your chest, then forwards to the ground is a knock-on lol.

 

[Anonymous person]

See AP, while you try and get people on a technicality, one thing you DON'T have is the ability to form an opinion on a ruling while using a basic method and form of discretion. If a rule is not totally black and white, then enter discretion. And common sense. Both of which you don't have.

It's not a field goal. Never was. Never will be. You don't even need to look at the rule books to rule on that one.

I'm not saying that you think it was, but the fact that you're going to all that effort to say "oh technically" just shows you're wasting everyone's time.

youre missing one important thing though - the rule book doesnt say that it has to be deliberately dropped, so common sense would say that it doesnt have to be deliberate. this is a rule book that we're talking about - a comprehensive listing of every rule with definitions of every word and stipulation in it. if it doesnt say something cant be done, common sense says that it can be done.

and are you going to suggest that the referees discretion and 'common sense' are always right? heeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll no.

im not trying to 'get' anyone on a technicality - im simply pointing out to the people saying 'by the rules its a clear knock-on' that by the rules it actually could be ruled a drop-goal. if noone ever corrected people that were wrong, or informed them of the information that could be useful to them to change their opinion, then everyone would go around spouting useless "facts" that are blatantly wrong.

I formed my opinion, and i posted it in my first post on the topic. i think it should be a drop goal because he dropped the ball, then kicked it. a drop kick is a drop kick. it didnt bounce twice, the ball wasnt dead - he dropped it, then kicked it. i thought that they *might* have changed it to have INTENT in the rulebook, and i questioned QUEENSLANDER and the other guys i was with when watching it, but as far as i was concerned it shouldve been a drop goal. if someone trips over and accidentally lands on a ball that on the ground in the opposition goals with their stomach, its still a try, is it not? so why cant someone accidentally kick a field goal?

and correcting someone and saying "oh technically" and pointing out their mistake is something that EVERYONE should do lol. if its a rule, it should be followed. if its not going to be followed, why bother making it?

 

[Coxy]

There's nothing in the rule book about dominant, surrender, chicken wing, grapple or any variations of the slow down tactics used.
Yet they still get enforced.

BTW, I think regarding knock ons you once said it's perfectly fine if the ball comes off your head and goes forward?

From the rule book:
Heading the ball 4. It is illegal to head the ball in a forward direction.

And while you're quite correct that if the ball goes through hands backwards, onto chest, then forward under the rules is not "technically" a knock on...every referee would call it a knock on, and rightly so. Because under common sense, it's a mistake. The player failed to catch the ball and knocked it forward.