POST GAME [Round 8, 2024] Broncos vs Wests Tigers

[Morkel]

Just remember though that Madden's last few opponents weren't genuine title contenders. His crazy-arse bombs have been great, and he's seemed to improve in other areas, but he hasn't bad a blowtorch applied. How he reacts against a top team, either up or down by 4 points on the scoreboard with 10 to go. That's where we'll see if he's improved.

 

[Renegade]

I`ve been on the Jock train a cpl of years now . Choo Choo !!

Two thumbs up to you brother.

 

[Big Del]

Almost like posters who come in and toot their own horn when they get something right or point out when someone gets something wrong but disappear when they get something wrong.

Fickle

It`s not nice to talk about 1910 like that . LOL .

 

[Big Del]

Just remember though that Madden's last few opponents weren't genuine title contenders. His crazy-arse bombs have been great, and he's seemed to improve in other areas, but he hasn't bad a blowtorch applied. How he reacts against a top team, either up or down by 4 points on the scoreboard with 10 to go. That's where we'll see if he's improved.

But , but , but , he applied down ward pressure twice !

 

[Skathen]

Reality is, play makers have a tough job, with precious few seconds to make good decisions or poor ones. Jock was not hitting expectations early, because people were expecting too much from an inexperienced half. It's hard to know how he's going to pan out, without a season or two under him.

Look at Dearden, he was nothing special in a losing team but has kicked on to be in regular contention for Origin. It's hard to say for Jock until he's played at least 10-20 games if he has the right stuff to take his game to a higher level.

 

[Foordy]

despite the media still whinging about the Api no try. Hooper actually saying it was a clear example of how the better teams always get the rub of the green ... Annesley as backed the officials saying it was no try.

still shot taken, showing the separation.

Annesley said that the rule was changed quite a few years ago to include the bit about having to catch/re-grip the ball after separation, because of an incident in a match where a player has clearly dropped the ball but his hand caught up with it just before hitting the ground, and a try was awarded.

also said that if you change the rule back then how do you tell what level of separation would be acceptable to award the try

 

[Sproj]

despite the media still whinging about the Api no try. Hooper actually saying it was a clear example of how the better teams always get the rub of the green ... Annesley as backed the officials saying it was no try.

still shot taken, showing the separation.
View attachment 27534

Annesley said that the rule was changed quite a few years ago to include the bit about having to catch/re-grip the ball after separation, because of an incident in a match where a player has clearly dropped the ball but his hand caught up with it just before hitting the ground, and a try was awarded.

also said that if you change the rule back then how do you tell what level of separation would be acceptable to award the try

You change the rule back...how is it any different to now? I still am not sure Staines got the ball down for one of his tries either but I tell you what, I'd be so ticked off if that Api one was Walters and had it taken off him. He had CLEAR downward pressure on it, who cares if it separated for a millisecond, it didn't touch anyone else and he clearly had control of it on put down.

 

[broncos4life]

I disagree. Rewatched it a few times and its a bazillionth of a second the ball bobbles in his hand in the air and he regathers and plants it.

Its insane to watch it at 100 fps and call any movement of the ball separation at those speeds.
I would flip a table if that was an overturned Bronco try.

Not the rule though, the rule is clear that if there is separation you need to regather/regrip with both hands before grounding, you can no longer use the ground to regrip the ball or just have downward pressure once there is seperation.

I believe that you would flip a table if this happened to the Broncos but you would be as unjustified in doing that as you are calling this a try for The Tigers.

 

[Midean]

Not the rule though, the rule is clear that if there is separation you need to regather/regrip with both hands before grounding, you can no longer use the ground to regrip the ball or just have downward pressure once there is seperation.

I believe that you would flip a table if this happened to the Broncos but you would be as unjustified in doing that as you are calling this a try for The Tigers.

You are correct, but, depending on which ref you get, both on the field and in the bunker, 50% of the time that is given as a try.
It's been blowing up in the media for a reason. Because it's controversial.
If that was the deciding factor in a grand final, heads would roll for that call.
We have for sure seen worse awarded and we have seen less denied.
I would be mad if that was a call against my team.

 

[Skathen]

You change the rule back...how is it any different to now? I still am not sure Staines got the ball down for one of his tries either but I tell you what, I'd be so ticked off if that Api one was Walters and had it taken off him. He had CLEAR downward pressure on it, who cares if it separated for a millisecond, it didn't touch anyone else and he clearly had control of it on put down.

Few games ago Jesse was trying to put the ball down right in the corner and had the same thing - taken off him too no?

 

[broncos4life]

You change the rule back...how is it any different to now? I still am not sure Staines got the ball down for one of his tries either but I tell you what, I'd be so ticked off if that Api one was Walters and had it taken off him. He had CLEAR downward pressure on it, who cares if it separated for a millisecond, it didn't touch anyone else and he clearly had control of it on put down.

Because it's the rule, end of discussion. If you hate the rule campaign the NRL to change it but the rules state that is no try.

 

[broncos4life]

You are correct, but, depending on which ref you get, both on the field and in the bunker, 50% of the time that is given as a try.
It's been blowing up in the media for a reason. Because it's controversial.
If that was the deciding factor in a grand final, heads would roll for that call.
We have for sure seen worse awarded and we have seen less denied.
I would be mad if that was a call against my team.

No it isn't controversial, it is a rule applied correctly. Just because they **** up the calls more times than not doesn't make the correct application controversial. This is madness.

 

[Midean]

Because it's the rule, end of discussion. If you hate the rule campaign the NRL to change it but the rules state that is no try.

Tigers cop the worst bunker call ever

Today we take a look at a disallowed try to Tigers hooker Api Koroisau, admire a fast-moving Sharks tactic, wonder what on earth Maika Sivo was thinking, and marvel at the defence of the Panthers.

www.espn.com.au

Yes it's the rule, but discretion is used for a reason.
Is it a knock on if there is seperation, but he regathers before the ball touches the ground? No it's not. That a rule too.
As far as I'm concerned he did enough to control the ball with downward pressure.

 

[broncos4life]

Few games ago Jesse was trying to put the ball down right in the corner and had the same thing - taken off him too no?

Yep and we just copped it sweet but because it happened to the poor old tigers that are just trying their gosh damn hardest it needs to be talked about for days.

 

[broncos4life]

Tigers cop the worst bunker call ever

Today we take a look at a disallowed try to Tigers hooker Api Koroisau, admire a fast-moving Sharks tactic, wonder what on earth Maika Sivo was thinking, and marvel at the defence of the Panthers.

www.espn.com.au

And? Are you trying to use a sensationalist piece of fluff where the author indicates they do not understand the rule to back up your point?

 

[Midean]

No it isn't controversial, it is a rule applied correctly. Just because they **** up the calls more times than not doesn't make the correct application controversial. This is madness.

No man, it's not black and white like you suggest. The ball bobbles in his hand, he regains control over it before it touches anyone or anything and he plants it.
It's blowing up in all sports news for a reason, and that is because it is controversial.

 

[Midean]

And? Are you trying to use a sensationalist piece of fluff where the author indicates they do not understand the rule to back up your point?

It's one example of many. Just take a quick look at any nrl news and its the same across the board, with a lot of nrl greats also claiming it should have been a try.

 

[Sproj]

Few games ago Jesse was trying to put the ball down right in the corner and had the same thing - taken off him too no?

I can't remember but if the ball slips out and doesn't touch anyone AND they CLEARLY regather like Api did, it should be a try.

Like we've got Coates and Wishart being awarded tries that are at best unclear on grounding but Api could not have scored more clearly with downward pressure not being awarded. Then of course we have the all time classic 'drop kick' try from Slater being awarded. It is all a mess.