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

Tigers vs Broncos

Tigers

10 - 34

MATCH COMPLETE

Campbelltown Sports Stadium

27 Apr 2024

Broncos

Match Stats

Tigers Broncos
2 Tries 6
1 / 2 Conversions 5 / 6
0/0 Field Goals 0/0
0/0 2P Field Goals 0/0
1 Try Assists 5
Tigers Broncos
50% Possession 50%
9 / 28 Set Completion 12 / 27
60 Time in Opposition Half 40
1406 Metres Gained 1447
0 Dropouts 1
8 Dummy Half Runs 2
18 / 442 Kicks/Kick Metres 18 / 531
0 40/20 0
0 20/40 0
17 Offloads 6
0 1 on 1 Steals 0
3 Line Breaks 5
3 Line Break Assists 4
0 Support Play 0
Tigers Broncos
9 / 28 Set Completion 12 / 27
4 Penalties (Conceded) 8
2 Set Restarts 2
13 Errors 15

Player Stats

# Tigers T Pts TA LB TB OFF Ta MT IT Pos DR K KM M E P
1 J. Bula 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 1 0 22 1 0 0m 101m 1 0
2 C. Staines 2 8 0 1 4 1 1 2 0 23 0 1 18m 158m 2 0
3 B. Naden 0 0 1 1 2 3 13 5 0 17 1 1 17m 131m 2 0
4 J. Olam 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 5 0 18 0 0 0m 91m 1 0
5 S. Alaimalo 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 3 0 13 0 0 0m 143m 0 0
6 L. Galvin 0 0 0 0 3 3 18 0 0 41 1 4 99m 52m 0 0
7 A. Sezer 0 2 0 0 2 1 21 4 0 44 0 10 256m 30m 0 0
8 S. Utoikamanu 0 0 0 0 2 2 27 0 0 10 0 0 0m 72m 0 0
9 A. Koroisau 0 0 0 0 2 0 32 3 0 11 4 1 2m 50m 3 0
10 D. Klemmer 0 0 0 0 2 0 24 1 0 14 0 0 0m 128m 0 0
11 I. Papali'i 0 0 0 0 2 1 24 3 0 10 0 0 0m 85m 0 0
12 Sa. Fainu 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 2 0 12 0 1 50m 68m 0 1
13 J. Bateman 0 0 0 0 1 3 39 1 0 16 0 0 0m 98m 3 1
14 L. Fainu 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 3 1 0 0m 4m 1 0
15 A. Twal 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 9 0 0 0m 47m 0 0
16 A. Seyfarth 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 5 0 0 0m 42m 0 0
17 F. Pole 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 12 0 0 0m 106m 0 2
18 J. Matamua 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0m 0m 0 0
# Broncos T Pts TA LB TB OFF Ta MT IT Pos DR K KM M E P
1 R. Walsh 2 8 0 1 3 1 4 2 0 28 0 4 112m 168m 2 1
2 C. Oates 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 0 21 0 0 0m 106m 2 0
3 K. Staggs 0 0 0 0 4 0 21 0 0 15 0 2 47m 109m 0 0
4 J. Arthars 0 0 0 0 5 1 11 1 0 14 0 0 0m 92m 1 0
5 D. Mariner 1 4 0 2 3 0 5 1 0 14 0 0 0m 135m 3 1
6 J. Madden 2 8 1 1 1 0 8 1 0 9 0 0 0m 23m 0 0
7 A. Reynolds 0 10 3 0 0 0 14 2 0 36 0 11 355m 31m 1 1
8 C. Jensen 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 0 12 0 0 0m 84m 1 0
9 B. Walters 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 3 0 4 1 0 0m 31m 0 1
10 P. Haas 1 4 0 1 3 0 26 0 0 12 0 0 0m 109m 0 0
11 B. Piakura 0 0 1 0 3 1 10 4 0 13 0 0 0m 111m 0 0
12 J. Riki 0 0 0 0 1 0 29 3 0 11 0 0 0m 75m 2 1
13 P. Carrigan 0 0 0 0 1 2 25 0 0 17 0 0 0m 156m 0 2
14 T. Smoothy 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 4 1 1 17m 4m 1 0
15 X. Willison 0 0 0 0 3 0 15 0 0 8 0 0 0m 83m 0 0
16 K. Hetherington 0 0 0 0 3 0 25 2 0 13 0 0 0m 97m 2 0
17 F. Baker 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 4 0 0 0m 33m 0 0
19 J. Hunt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0m 0m 0 0
 
broncos4life

broncos4life

International Captain
Forum Staff
Oct 5, 2011
25,500
26,037
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.
But that isn’t the rule.
 
broncos4life

broncos4life

International Captain
Forum Staff
Oct 5, 2011
25,500
26,037
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.
It’s blowing up on sports news for a reason you are right, clicks. No-one gives a shit about an article that reads “correct call made, Api denied try through poor execution”.

It is also blowing up because a lot of the NRL don’t understand the rule either.

It is absolutely black and white and I will try to make it clear for you. The rule states (they changed this a few years ago) if there is separation you must regather with 2 hands. So what exactly are you disputing? Do you;

a) Believe there was no separation?

Or

b) Do you have another angle that shows Api regathered the ball with both hands?
 
Old Mate

Old Mate

NRL Player
Jul 5, 2008
2,701
2,225
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.
That drop kick try pisses me off so much, especially when Gillette dropped the ball and booted it and got a field goal but they denied it because he wasn’t intending to kick a field goal. You know that if it was smith or Slater that did it it would be allowed.
 
Midean

Midean

State of Origin Rep
Jun 5, 2019
7,791
12,748
It’s blowing up on sports news for a reason you are right, clicks. No-one gives a shit about an article that reads “correct call made, Api denied try through poor execution”.

It is also blowing up because a lot of the NRL don’t understand the rule either.

It is absolutely black and white and I will try to make it clear for you. The rule states (they changed this a few years ago) if there is separation you must regather with 2 hands. So what exactly are you disputing? Do you;

a) Believe there was no separation?

Or

b) Do you have another angle that shows Api regathered the ball with both hands?
I believe the seperation is negligible at those speeds and happens often with difficult put downs.
We have seen worse tries awarded.
If you slow down any try enough you will find a problem.
 
Midean

Midean

State of Origin Rep
Jun 5, 2019
7,791
12,748
It's also not just for clicks, even just on this thread there is enough people that think it was a try, and that's against the team we played.
So yes, it's controversial weather you like it or not.
That's exactly why it's being discussed.
I would award that try 10 out of 10 times.
Also won't budge on this stance, regardless of who thinks its wrong, I think it's a try and tigers fans should be pissed about it.
 
B

Brotherdu

NRL Player
Feb 20, 2017
2,229
2,150
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.
I think the distinction here is that 'catching up' with the the ball in a situation like Api's is not the same as 'regathering'. He is using the ground to regain control. He needs to have full control prior to grounding the ball, i.e. 2 hands on the ball or between his arm and body.

At least that is how I am interpreting this.
 
Midean

Midean

State of Origin Rep
Jun 5, 2019
7,791
12,748
Because you are completely ignoring the black and white rules to suit your argument. Doesn't matter who says what. The rules are very clear. No try failed to regather. Knock on.
That's more constructive, well done mate, welcome to the conversation 👏
 
broncos4life

broncos4life

International Captain
Forum Staff
Oct 5, 2011
25,500
26,037
It's also not just for clicks, even just on this thread there is enough people that think it was a try, and that's against the team we played.
So yes, it's controversial weather you like it or not.
That's exactly why it's being discussed.
I would award that try 10 out of 10 times.
Also won't budge on this stance, regardless of who thinks its wrong, I think it's a try and tigers fans should be pissed about it.
It’s being discussed because a lot of people don’t understand the rule or like you do understand the rule but are just refusing to accept it for some bizarre reason.

You are entitled to not budge on your stance but your stance is wrong. This isn’t a vibe thing, these are facts that you are happy to be in the wrong about and wear as some sort of badge of honour so probably no point discussing any further.
 
Morkel

Morkel

International Captain
Contributor
Jan 25, 2013
25,356
29,208
There is no re-gathering, or a regaining of control, just because the hand catches up with it does not constitute control. Yes, it's a tiny bit of separation for a fraction of a second, but it is there nonetheless. If your foot touches a tiny bit of the touchline for a fraction of a second, there is no "discretion". If you bobble the ball slightly in to the opposition, there is no "discretion". If it's not entirely clear, and therefore questionable, there can be discretion, but not when it is 100% confirmed, regardless of the amount of separation and time
 
Morkel

Morkel

International Captain
Contributor
Jan 25, 2013
25,356
29,208
Arthars', on the other hand, looked to me to have zero separation. There was little control when it was grounded, but zero separation, with the new rules that is a try. But because Journos don't care about the rules, or the truth, especially if it would favour the Broncos, there was no "worst ruling ever" when that happened.
 
Skathen

Skathen

NRL Player
Contributor
Feb 25, 2015
1,801
4,453
There is no re-gathering, or a regaining of control, just because the hand catches up with it does not constitute control. Yes, it's a tiny bit of separation for a fraction of a second, but it is there nonetheless. If your foot touches a tiny bit of the touchline for a fraction of a second, there is no "discretion". If you bobble the ball slightly in to the opposition, there is no "discretion". If it's not entirely clear, and therefore questionable, there can be discretion, but not when it is 100% confirmed, regardless of the amount of separation and time
Correct - they changed the rule to make ruling on it more clear cut. It achieved that objective. What's less clear cut is people demanding "what looks like a try, should be a try" but that doesn't write well into a Policy/Procedure for the bunker to follow.

If the ball appears to come loose, they need to re-gain full control of the ball before it hits the dirt. Lovely and clear. Now watch the bunker come up with 15 different ways to interpret it week in week out. :brickwall:
 
broncos4life

broncos4life

International Captain
Forum Staff
Oct 5, 2011
25,500
26,037
This really shouldn’t be this hard, it’s the most basic flowchart ever.

Did the ball come away from the hand at any point?
Yes - Proceed to next point
No - Try

Did the player regather or regrip the ball prior to grounding without the assistance of the ground?
Yes - Try
No - No Try
 
Sproj

Sproj

Immortal
Senior Staff
Sep 6, 2013
51,868
62,891
The player had the ball in one hand, why should he need to regather with both? And did his hand even definitively come away from it anyway? Some angles looked like he always had a finger on it. He clearly had control on put down.

Compare to the Roosters try a couple of weeks ago where the player clearly lost it, clear air between hand and ball when ball was on the ground but was given a try for the fans of something.

It isn’t hard to be consistent, this was far more a try than that trash.
 

Unread

Active Now

  • 1910
  • Bucking Beads
  • Skathen
  • 007
  • john1420
  • BRC088
  • broncsgoat
  • TwoLeftFeet
  • mieko
  • Cavalo
  • Brocko
  • Strop
  • Allo
  • Sanjit Joseph
  • Lozza
  • Behold
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.