The Anti-Bronco Conspiracy

[Brotherdu]

The Anti-Bronco Conspiracy

Wether it be the on field ref, the video ref, the judiciary, the media, the draw schedulers, the salary cap, covid, it seems as though a lot of BHQ believe in some level of conspiracy against the broncos. I personally don’t really see it but I’m genuinely interested to know what posters here...

broncoshq.com

Sorry, I missed that thread, thanks for pointing it out. Mods, please feel free to merge or delete, or whatever it is you do with all your free time :P

 

[papabear]

Great win by your boys, you fans should be proud. That is the kind of win that can really galvanise a struggling team and your troops are all due back soon. I've got to say though, Kris has done a pretty good job for you guys at fullback but strange you guys went in to the season with no back up FB. Hope you guys keep Wighton too because without him, your team really lacks any x factor.

ricky stuart is a strange and mysterious man

my guess is his logic was with HSS - Croker - Valemi - Hopoate - schiller he was thinking we have enough centre / winger depth to shuffle around.... problem hasnt been kris as he is admirable its that the back ups are pretty garbage and our spine was already lacking a bit of something that make shift isnt really a goo option over a backup.

thanks for the comment though.

That being said at 5-1 and your middles being top class with a quality 7/6/1 and your edges (cobbo looking like a young greg inglis) you guys could be in for a tilt at the big one if kevin can keep everyones heads in the game.

Oddly enough ricky does a good job of motivating, its just the rest of his coaching which sometimes gets confusing...

 

[Big Pete]

The challenged call depends on the rule - it was forward of the hands then backwards off his legs (without contacting the ground or opponent in between). Maybe this was right but usually a ref would call a knock back in the field of play if the ball ends up going backwards.

If you knock it forward with the hand you have to either regain control of it or put in a deliberate kick. They got that one correct.

For the first 60 minutes we didnt get one holding down or head high penalty (marginal ones of these happen all the time in rugby league) for instance i think it was late in the second half reece walsh was falling and got taken slightly high on a nothing tackle off a kick return and got the penalty.

Atkins was letting everything go in that second half until Whitehead stumbled into a tackle by Mam and got the penalty. That's despite a clear swinging arm from Young on Reynolds and a few others on Cobbo. The Mam penalty happened before the 60th.

As for the rapana situation, best case scenario for the broncos was starting the play the ball for the raiders.

No, either it was a knock on against the Raiders or a penalty. That's why they stretched to make that decision even though Atkins explanation of it was completely fabricated. For 100 years that's just been incidental contact and unfortunate for the injured player. The Raiders got the call in that situation.

That's not taking anything away from the Raiders and it was a great result for your blokes.

 

[LittleDavey]

I want to add Coates' try against whoever it was, where they ruled the other guy grounded it in the in-goal when it was very clearly, blatantly Coates' brown hand and not the other guy's white hand which did the grounding.

 

[BroncsFan]

If you knock it forward with the hand you have to either regain control of it or put in a deliberate kick. They got that one correct.

So did they get the first Hiku knock on wrong in Round 2 then??

He clearly knocks the ball forward on his catch attempt and then it hits his shoulder and goes line ball backwards

 

[Big Pete]

So did they get the first Hiku knock on wrong in Round 2 then??

He clearly knocks the ball forward on his catch attempt and then it hits his shoulder and goes line ball backwards

I believe so.

Looking at the vision again, I presume the video official (Atkins?) ruled that he bobbled it into his shoulder and it must have been backwards because the ball ended up that way. Whereas with Kris there's a clear knock on before he knocks it back with his body.

 

[Big Del]

Anything arguing for it is nothing more than some weird troll to go against the grain of what is considered normal.

Yep me an Freddy a cpl of weird trolls . LOL .

 

[Big Del]

croker - back up to kris and had been behind HSS until he showed what a bog average footy player he was.

For a back up player he handled Staggs like a champ .
He`s close to 300 games ...

 

[Morkel]

So, this isn't meant to be a conspiratorial thread, however it did get me thinking on some of the strange decisions we have copped over the years, not just 'Ref missed a blatant forward pass'.' Some examples -

1. The Billy Slater knock on when attempting to put a kick into the in goal, which the TMO then somehow concocted the excuse of an attempted drop goal.
2. Matt Gillet getting sin binned for tackling a player after running 30m back onside from a quick tap (if my recollection is correct)
3. Most recently, Toupau getting penalised for an accidental collision, whereas there was an argument for us receiving a try and tying the game.

So the question I am posing is, what other examples of perceived bias against the Broncos can you recall, and can you think of any examples of other teams being getting bizarre decisions against them?

A good example would be the Cowboys being robbed a few years back and losing a final when the Sharks (I think) were awarded a try on the 7th tackle.

Looking forward to hearing what other examples those with footy encyclopedia brains can come up with.

PS, obviously we can raise the fact that we always seem to play a high percentage of the top 8 teams twice a season, or the fact we can never seem to get a charge dropped or downgraded. I'm particularly interested in some of the weird and wacky on field decisions you've seen, regardless of the teams affected.

Cheers.

I've always held the Gillett binning as a legitimate accident. IIRC the ref even apologised to him after the game.

I will add to the list:

* Blair being neutered out of the game. He was often pinged for the tiniest things. But the worst one was where he (fairly and legally) walloped a guy that didn't see it coming. It was the stereotype "hit too hard". He was binned for a high tackle, but replays showed zero contact with the head. So instead the judiciary charged him with a shoulder charge, even though contact was with his chest & arm.

* TPJ being heavily penalised and suspended, yet since his move to the Bulldogs you'd think he's a cleanskin, despite his aggressive style being identical. I guess it's hard to be suspended when you're injured though.

* Flegler. Since TPJ left, he's been the over-scrutinised Broncos enforcer. There was that one game where he was put on report 3 times (including one that was literally a "too hard" tackle as it didn't fall in to the category of any actual illegal acts), was binned, and then suspended for very minor acts.

* Carrigan bearing the brunt of the "crackdown" on hip-drops, despite not matching the definition of a hip-drop, and despite the judiciary finding that it wouldn't have been dangerous at all had the player not been pushed backwards by other tacklers. There have been numerous similar tackles since then, similarly not classic "hip drops" but still resulting in the player bringing down their body weight on the legs while holding the torso, on some occasions where the single tackler was solely responsible for the action & potential danger, and yet we have seen nothing close to the drama whipped up by the media nor the NRL.

 

[BroncosFever]

I'm catching up on the Sunday Footy Show as we speak and was about to relay this.

Basically it boils down to whether or not you think Rapana could have done anything differently. Freddy and Billy believe he had no other choice than to dive for safety thus onus was on Taupau to avoid the collision. Joey believes it was part in parcel of the game and it was Rapana who contributed to the injury by dropping down.

I'd love to know if there was any precedent before this.

Here's your precedent.



No problem they say, even an extra 4 points to boot.

 

[Big Del]

Dude Nelson kneed didn't have the ball though ?

 

[LittleDavey]

There's been 2 precedents already shown earlier in the thread. On neither occasion was it on report or even a penalty IIRC, it was simply play on. Ergo, Capewell scored, and we were robbed.

 

[Big Pete]

Here's your precedent.



No problem they say, even an extra 4 points to boot.

That's a major stretch to compare that to the Taupau incident.

 

[BroncosFever]

That's a major stretch to compare that to the Taupau incident.

They clearly don't care about the circumstances, both times an attacker knees a defender in the head.

 

[Big Pete]

They clearly don't care about the circumstances, both times an attacker knees a defender in the head.

I disagree, they take a dimmer view when a defender makes dangerous contact on a ball-carrier. They said as much when they cleared the Kris elbow on Flegler.

 

[Big Del]

There's been 2 precedents already shown earlier in the thread. On neither occasion was it on report or even a penalty IIRC, it was simply play on. Ergo, Capewell scored, and we were robbed.

Nah , forget what you thought you knew .
New season , new class action court case looming . Must be seen to be protecting the employees .

 

[Morkel]

Nah , forget what you thought you knew .
New season , new class action court case looming . Must be seen to be protecting the employees .

*** Of certain clubs though. Capewell doesn't count apparently.

 

[Cult]

The NRL got their blockbuster Dolphins/Broncos game and now we are back to regular programming. We get reffed so weirdly