SPOILERS! Post game Chat Broncos VS Panthers

[Coxy]

Yes and no Rock. The more tired the Panthers got the lazier they got covering the inside, hence the inside balls working so well.

The Dragons aren't nearly as lazy, even when fatigued.

Not knocking the team at all, it was a fantastic effort, but you have to put it in context. It's like the Tigers putting 56 on the Sharks yesterday, it means nothing going into their game against the Eels and they know it. It's just a good boost to your confidence knowing the plays work when the opportunities present.

 

[Anonymous person]

Joel Clinton??

Nope, I haven't seen Clinton give that much gusto in his charges. This week and last week Sims was just absolutely chargin'.

 

[Coxy]

Well, I have seen Clinton charge with such gusto. The blood stain was still on Suncorp Stadium's turf during Origin 3....

 

[Anonymous person]

Well, I have seen Clinton charge with such gusto. The blood stain was still on Suncorp Stadium's turf during Origin 3....

ahhh my mistake. That was quite the charge. How he isn't still picking teeth out of his brain I have no idea [icon_lol1.

One thing from the game - Yow Yehs try: They went to the video referee to check for a knock-on from Thaiday, but how could it possibly have been a knock-on? He intentionally hit at it, he touched it, and it went to Yow Yeh on the full. It's a forward pass if anything (which i actually believe it was), but the video referee can't rule on that. The touch judge was saying to the referee that it was in fact a forward pass, then the ref went to the video referee to check. By the rules there was no doubt in that try at all once it went to the video referee - it HAD to be a try, forward pass or not. IIRC the ruling was 'TRY - Benefit of the Doubt', when really there is no doubt whatsoever. Just $hits me to tears seeing them almost make another blatantly incorrect decision.

 

[lyn]

Joel Clinton??

Nope, I haven't seen Clinton give that much gusto in his charges. This week and last week Sims was just absolutely chargin'.

You serious? I haven't seen any player run the ball up as hard and as fast as Clinton for a long time.

 

[Coxy]

It's another of the things that a video referee should not be allowed or asked to rule on. They should not be asked to rule on obstructions, forward passes, or knock ons in the field of play. Even ruling on offside from kicks is less than accurate at times given camera angles.

I agree with commentators who say the only thing the video referees should be ruling on is groundings. ie, did they have control, downward pressure, ground it within the in goal area, on the line, and without touching sideline.

The 2 refs and touch judges should provide adequate vision of forward passes, knock ons, off side and obstructions in general play!

In the case of yesterday's try, the touch judge quite clearly signalled that the tap on from Thaiday was forward. The referee should've disallowed it based on that alone.

Ridiculous.

 

[mrslong]

It's another of the things that a video referee should not be allowed or asked to rule on. They should not be asked to rule on obstructions, forward passes, or knock ons in the field of play. Even ruling on offside from kicks is less than accurate at times given camera angles.

I agree with commentators who say the only thing the video referees should be ruling on is groundings. ie, did they have control, downward pressure, ground it within the in goal area, on the line, and without touching sideline.

The 2 refs and touch judges should provide adequate vision of forward passes, knock ons, off side and obstructions in general play!

In the case of yesterday's try, the touch judge quite clearly signalled that the tap on from Thaiday was forward. The referee should've disallowed it based on that alone.

Ridiculous.

Thank you, Gus.

 

[schmix]

The problem is that the onfield refs have no confidence whatsoever, because the media are constantly overanalysing every single contentious decision. They send everything up "just to check" because it will take the blame (and focus) off them.

The Sunday Roast guys spent about 2/3 of their show giving it to the refs the other week, and only one of those decisions was a video ref one. Then Gould said they should get rid of the video ref because apparently they can put up with bad decisions from onfield refs. Well the previous 40 minutes of their show would suggest otherwise... eusa_think

If Gus reckons he (and the rest of the media) will stop giving it to the referees if the video ref goes then he's kidding himself.

 

[Coxy]

I think the problem schmix is that the video referee has so much scope for being involved that if a ref makes a decision and it's subsequently proven wrong, and that the video referee could've checked it, they get bagged.

If the video referee had no grounds to rule on it anyway, and the decision was made based on what the on field officials saw, then I think there would be less outrage. There would be outrage, but less.

Fact is it needs to combine with more clearcut rule interpretations regarding obstructions and ball control. If we take away the "if a defender is contacted in any way" and "separation" type bullshit out of the interpretations it'll be much simpler.

If players HAVE to have full control of the ball in their hands to ground it for a try, then there's less debate. You see a bobble in the grounding, it's no try. Probably means the Waterhouse and Thaiday tries yesterday get disallowed, so be it.

Anyway, it's all moot discussion anyway. Whatever the coaches decide at their end of season conference will be what happens next year.

 

[Coxy]

Oh, one thing Brad commented on at the game yesterday was with McGuire's try and Hunt's second try. NONE of the on field officials SAW the grounding, as they were still behind the play when it happened.

In both, the ball bobbled and sprayed out after the grounding. To us from a distance it looked conceivable there might've been loss of control.

But because they didn't see it, they awarded the tries straight away instead of sending it to the video referee!
Meanwhile, on the Waterhouse one, the Thaiday one, the Yow Yeh one, all the officials saw everything that happened, had their opinions, but sent it upstairs to "check".

Does that seem unusual to anyone else? :P They don't see it, they award it. They do see it, they don't?

 

[Browny]

Mate they cant see everything, like two players throwing a thousand punches ;)

 

[Coxy]

Well they feel like they don't need to see everything. The almighty in heaven (ie Bill Harrigan or Tim Mander in the VR box) will enlighten them.

 

[Professor47]

When was the last time we beat the Dragons at WIN though?

I'm not even sure I've seen it happen except maybe unless it happened in 98 or 2000?

 

[Jeba]

Good to see that Bennetts ridiculous coaching of Thaiday appears to be almost completely out of his system.

How was that Bennett's fault? I thought the coach's job was to just pick the team eusa_think :roll:

 

[Professor47]

You guys reckon Andrew is the way to go for the number 9?

Can we win a premiership with him there in the next 2 seasons?

 

[Jeba]

Yes.

 

[Foordy]

You guys reckon Andrew is the way to go for the number 9?

Can we win a premiership with him there in the next 2 seasons?

yes... I also predicted that McCullough would have won the starting hooking role by half way through this year and i was right icon_smile

 

[ningnangnong]

McCullough has really improved over the last two games IMO.

He's gone back to the basics and it's working well.

He hasn't been outstanding by any means, but he doesn't need to be.

Hopefully it continues.