2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

All the news on the Canberra Raiders NRL team, all in one place

Moderator: GH Moderators

Who will win?

Raiders 13+
2
17%
Raiders 1-12
7
58%
Draw
0
No votes
Roosters 1-12
1
8%
Roosters 13+
2
17%
 
Total votes: 12

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by The Rickman » August 12, 2019, 1:28 pm

So you’re saying Croker needed to rely on his second rower coming around behind his half after he’s rushed out of the line to cover the gaping hole that was left and somehow this is Croker’s fault?

Yeah, righto
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

-GD-
Don Furner
Posts: 22570
Joined: February 10, 2007, 10:58 pm
Favourite Player: Mal Meninga, Terry Campese, Troy Thompson
Location: ACT

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by -GD- » August 12, 2019, 1:39 pm

The Rickman wrote:So you’re saying Croker needed to rely on his second rower coming around behind his half after he’s rushed out of the line to cover the gaping hole that was left and somehow this is Croker’s fault?

Yeah, righto
Hilarious trying to blame Croker for that.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22628
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by Northern Raider » August 12, 2019, 1:42 pm

BJ wrote:
August 12, 2019, 1:26 pm
Attacking players will soon adjust to the new strip interpretation. Wrestling and getting caught up in the ruck is a much bigger issue for the game. An issue that the refs haven’t addressed properly for a decade.

Changeovers of possession are better than the controlled ruck and controlled possession oriented game. I say leave it as it is.
Exactly right. Roosters were masters at getting tangled up in the ruck and slowing down play. I believe Robinson's comments about the strip rule were intended to divert attention from this.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25148
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » August 12, 2019, 1:42 pm

greeneyed wrote:
August 12, 2019, 10:53 am
PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 9:31 am
I dont think thats accurate at all, the referee had called it a fair contest, if CNK caught it, all evidence suggests the referee was going to call play on.
The referee said it was no try on the field. The referee on the field called that because he thought CNK had been taken out.. It was the bunker that cleared the CNK incident and overturned the referee on the field.
Apologies. You are correct.
So yeah i guess if CNK catches it, the official probably would have awarded a penalty, incorrectly imo
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
Seiffert82
Mal Meninga
Posts: 21650
Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
Favourite Player: Bay56

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by Seiffert82 » August 12, 2019, 1:46 pm

That knock on by CNK should absolutely have been called no-try and a penalty against Tupou, based on the interpretation and application of the rule.

If Tupou was in position to contest the bomb, he's absolutely entitled to do so. However he's not entitled to get himself into a position that undermines the safety of the defending player who is contesting the bomb. That's the whole point of the rule.

Tupou ran into a spot that essentially caused CNK to land awkwardly and spill the ball. He didn't properly contest the ball. He didn't jump for it and he turned his back on it when it was clear CNK had eyes on the ball. CNK was put in a position where he had to contest the bomb and when Tupou didn't contest it, it became a dangerous situation. It was clumsy at best and deserved a penalty in accordance with the rules.

It was ridiculous for the VR to overrule the on-field refs call.
Last edited by Seiffert82 on August 12, 2019, 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25148
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » August 12, 2019, 1:49 pm

pickles wrote:
August 12, 2019, 10:40 am
Have to disagree re CNK. Hi think it should be the right call but that isn’t how it has been called all season. Doesn’t matter that he wasn’t trying to make a tackle, he made contact with CNK and interferes with him catching the ball.
we were awarded a crucial try only a few weeks ago against Penrith where our player made contact with Mansour and interfers with him catching the ball. The incident was sent up to the video ref and he concluded it was a fair try.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25148
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » August 12, 2019, 1:51 pm

LastRaider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 10:43 am
A lot of people on here over the last few weeks have been blaming the inside man which is Wighton for Croker’s missed tackles and rushing out of the line so I’m going to put it out there is Jack Wighton the problem? Is Wighton turning into another Blake Austin in defence? Is Wighton a liability for this club moving forward with his defence?
No. He's aggressive and he hits way more than he misses, which can not be said for Blake.
Also this aggressive up and in style is seemingly how Stuart wants them to play this year and it's been good enough for 2nd best defensive team in the comp.. you cant pitch shut outs all the time and part of being aggressive is sometimes you get caught out.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
zim
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6696
Joined: July 8, 2015, 3:38 pm
Favourite Player: Past: Brett Mullins
Present: Elliot Whitehead
Location: Sydney

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by zim » August 12, 2019, 1:56 pm

PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 1:51 pm
LastRaider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 10:43 am
A lot of people on here over the last few weeks have been blaming the inside man which is Wighton for Croker’s missed tackles and rushing out of the line so I’m going to put it out there is Jack Wighton the problem? Is Wighton turning into another Blake Austin in defence? Is Wighton a liability for this club moving forward with his defence?
No. He's aggressive and he hits way more than he misses, which can not be said for Blake.
Also this aggressive up and in style is seemingly how Stuart wants them to play this year and it's been good enough for 2nd best defensive team in the comp.. you cant pitch shut outs all the time and part of being aggressive is sometimes you get caught out.
The other thing is if there's time Wighton will also cover for his mistakes. Far too often Austin made a decision and that was the end of it. No follow up.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25148
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » August 12, 2019, 2:00 pm

yeh raiders wrote:
August 12, 2019, 10:48 am
I’m so sick of the stripping rule. Ruins the flow of the game.

We’re pretty good at it, but at a crucial time yesterday we decided to spend an entire set trying to strip a ball and gave away about 60 metres when we should be looking to keep the Roosters in our half.

People argue about having more ball security... if there was a genuine issue with ball security, there’d be more errors in general play.

Throw 3 men in a tackle and 1 defenders job is to lock up the ball, then make a call for the others to peel out so he can put his entire weight behind a strip. That’s not a ball security issue, it’s obviously very difficult to keep control of it.

It’s just not Rugby League.

Further to that, both Ricky and Trent Robinson argued that it’s too complex for the refs and I totally agree.

Go back to the old rule and stop ruining Rugby League.

Basically the option for the game is offloads or more stripping - I’m choosing offloads everyday of the week.
If it's so difficult and impossible for a ball carrier to maintain possession why is this not happening 20 times a game? Why is it happening, on average about once every 0.5 games?
You take the Raiders out, who account for probably close to 1/3rd of strips, and it's probably one per 0.3 games.
So why isnt it happening more if this is a cheat code?

I agree about the officiating of it but tbh the refs have done a damn good job of it, they've gotten the overwhelming majority right.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25148
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » August 12, 2019, 2:06 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 11:05 am
pickles wrote:
August 12, 2019, 10:40 am
In close games it takes some brilliance to create points. Tedesco did it twice. That was the difference between the teams.

Have to disagree re CNK. Hi think it should be the right call but that isn’t how it has been called all season. Doesn’t matter that he wasn’t trying to make a tackle, he made contact with CNK and interferes with him catching the ball. It wasn’t the difference but that is how it has been called all season, including in the very next game.

One of our tries came from what looked to be a knock on so they cancel each other out IMO
Very next game Storm scored a try and bunker overruled saying the attacking player mistimed his jump and inconvenienced the defender. Conflicts with the call in our game.
The storm incident and CNK incident are similar only in that they involved kicks
nothing else about them is like

CNK leaped OVER Tupou who was flat footed and standing still. The only reason CNK was impeded was because he leaped INTO and over Tupou. That's on him. Tupou has a right to occupy that space, what he cant do is tackle a player in mid air, and given his arms were down by his side as CNK climbed him like an AFL full forward, there was no tackle attempt made. CNK initiated the contact. Not Tupou.

For the storm, Vunivalu initiated the contact, impeded the defender, shifted him off his spot, the spot he's entitled to occupy and did it so early that he landed on his feet before the ball reached the contest.

These are NOT like incidents.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22628
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by Northern Raider » August 12, 2019, 2:15 pm

zim wrote:
August 12, 2019, 1:56 pm
PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 1:51 pm
LastRaider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 10:43 am
A lot of people on here over the last few weeks have been blaming the inside man which is Wighton for Croker’s missed tackles and rushing out of the line so I’m going to put it out there is Jack Wighton the problem? Is Wighton turning into another Blake Austin in defence? Is Wighton a liability for this club moving forward with his defence?
No. He's aggressive and he hits way more than he misses, which can not be said for Blake.
Also this aggressive up and in style is seemingly how Stuart wants them to play this year and it's been good enough for 2nd best defensive team in the comp.. you cant pitch shut outs all the time and part of being aggressive is sometimes you get caught out.
The other thing is if there's time Wighton will also cover for his mistakes. Far too often Austin made a decision and that was the end of it. No follow up.
Yeah, no comaprison IMO. Wighton is jamming in as part of the defensive structure. He's exectuing what they've practiced. THis is obvious as the players around him are follwoing their own assignments too. It doesn't work out perfectly every time and occaisonally the opposition with find a flaw. However its proving very effective the vast majority of the time. Austin on the other hand looked be be doing it of his own accord. The defense was subbsequently left disorganised and scrambling.

Primary evidence is in the scoreboard. Previous year's we've been leaking point while this year we have one of the best defenses in the comp. Even yesterday we held solid against one of the premiership heavyweights. I would only put that first try down to any sort of defensive failing.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22628
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by Northern Raider » August 12, 2019, 2:24 pm

PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:06 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 11:05 am
pickles wrote:
August 12, 2019, 10:40 am
In close games it takes some brilliance to create points. Tedesco did it twice. That was the difference between the teams.

Have to disagree re CNK. Hi think it should be the right call but that isn’t how it has been called all season. Doesn’t matter that he wasn’t trying to make a tackle, he made contact with CNK and interferes with him catching the ball. It wasn’t the difference but that is how it has been called all season, including in the very next game.

One of our tries came from what looked to be a knock on so they cancel each other out IMO
Very next game Storm scored a try and bunker overruled saying the attacking player mistimed his jump and inconvenienced the defender. Conflicts with the call in our game.
The storm incident and CNK incident are similar only in that they involved kicks
nothing else about them is like

CNK leaped OVER Tupou who was flat footed and standing still. The only reason CNK was impeded was because he leaped INTO and over Tupou. That's on him. Tupou has a right to occupy that space, what he cant do is tackle a player in mid air, and given his arms were down by his side as CNK climbed him like an AFL full forward, there was no tackle attempt made. CNK initiated the contact. Not Tupou.

For the storm, Vunivalu initiated the contact, impeded the defender, shifted him off his spot, the spot he's entitled to occupy and did it so early that he landed on his feet before the ball reached the contest.

These are NOT like incidents.
If anything there was less interference caused by Vunivalu than Tupou. The former went for the ball 100%, mistimed his jump but still made a play at the ball. Tupou initially went for the ball but also mistimed and pulled out. Ended up contacting the defending player jumping for the ball. This has been given a penalty pretty much every time and that exactly how the officals on the field saw it.

This is fairly straight forward. Whether you agree with how the rule is applied or not, thats how it's been enforced for quite a long time now. Yesterday the bunker decided this would be the exception and disagreed with the on field decision.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15738
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Are we premiership contenders?

Post by T_R » August 12, 2019, 2:26 pm

greeneyed wrote:
August 12, 2019, 11:31 am
Losing that game makes it a whole lot harder, because a top two finish is now a whole lot less likely. I was expecting that we'd lose to the Storm... but the Raiders are now in the position where they have to beat the Storm in Melbourne next weekend if they're to stay in the hunt for the top two... and we now have to rely on the Roosters slipping up.

It worries me that the Raiders have not beaten a top four team in four encounters so far. We had the match stats yesterday of a winning team, but didn't come away with the win. The Raiders were lacking that extra bit of polish and composure from the play makers, that the Roosters had. The Raiders had more opportunity, but didn't convert as well as the Roosters did. I'm not sure how they're going to get the advantage in the same sort of small moments in the same sort of games to come. I hope they can, but I'm worried...
What are we....1/6 against the top 6? It's a bit of a worry. Not miles off the pace, but not quite getting over the line.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25148
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » August 12, 2019, 2:33 pm

But the point, NR is, the interference in the storm instance was caused by the storm player leaping early and into a rabbitohs player impeded him, the interference CNK's instance was cause by CNK himself, leaping into and over Tupou.

And it's not how it's been enforced though. It's been enforced when a player initiates contact on a player mid air. Tupou never initiated contact. CNK did. That's why it was deemed a fair contest. You dont get to just steam in 1000 miles an our leap into and over a passive player and get bailed out when you knock it on. It's never been that. Tupou has a right to occupy his position on the ground and so long as he doesnt attack the defender in the air, which he didnt, then it's on the defender to make the catch.

It simply comes down to this. CNK initiates the contact, and in doing so he impedes his own ability to take the ball cleanly. Tupou did nothing to attack the man in the air, he simple ran to a spot on the field and decided not to contest the ball in the air. So long as he does attack the player in the air, and again, he didnt that much is absolutely clear, Tupou did not attack CNK in the air, he's got as much right to that spot of the field as CNK does.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
Seiffert82
Mal Meninga
Posts: 21650
Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
Favourite Player: Bay56

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by Seiffert82 » August 12, 2019, 2:38 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:24 pm
PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:06 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 11:05 am
pickles wrote:
August 12, 2019, 10:40 am
In close games it takes some brilliance to create points. Tedesco did it twice. That was the difference between the teams.

Have to disagree re CNK. Hi think it should be the right call but that isn’t how it has been called all season. Doesn’t matter that he wasn’t trying to make a tackle, he made contact with CNK and interferes with him catching the ball. It wasn’t the difference but that is how it has been called all season, including in the very next game.

One of our tries came from what looked to be a knock on so they cancel each other out IMO
Very next game Storm scored a try and bunker overruled saying the attacking player mistimed his jump and inconvenienced the defender. Conflicts with the call in our game.
The storm incident and CNK incident are similar only in that they involved kicks
nothing else about them is like

CNK leaped OVER Tupou who was flat footed and standing still. The only reason CNK was impeded was because he leaped INTO and over Tupou. That's on him. Tupou has a right to occupy that space, what he cant do is tackle a player in mid air, and given his arms were down by his side as CNK climbed him like an AFL full forward, there was no tackle attempt made. CNK initiated the contact. Not Tupou.

For the storm, Vunivalu initiated the contact, impeded the defender, shifted him off his spot, the spot he's entitled to occupy and did it so early that he landed on his feet before the ball reached the contest.

These are NOT like incidents.
If anything there was less interference caused by Vunivalu than Tupou. The former went for the ball 100%, mistimed his jump but still made a play at the ball. Tupou initially went for the ball but also mistimed and pulled out. Ended up contacting the defending player jumping for the ball. This has been given a penalty pretty much every time and that exactly how the officals on the field saw it.

This is fairly straight forward. Whether you agree with how the rule is applied or not, thats how it's been enforced for quite a long time now. Yesterday the bunker decided this would be the exception and disagreed with the on field decision.
That's exactly what happened. Topou made a decision, ran into the contest and pulled out of it in last second, causing CNK to be upended and lose the ball. That's on Tupou.

It has been a penalty since the rule was introduced.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22628
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by Northern Raider » August 12, 2019, 2:45 pm

PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:33 pm
But the point, NR is, the interference in the storm instance was caused by the storm player leaping early and into a rabbitohs player impeded him, the interference CNK's instance was cause by CNK himself, leaping into and over Tupou.

And it's not how it's been enforced though. It's been enforced when a player initiates contact on a player mid air. Tupou never initiated contact. CNK did. That's why it was deemed a fair contest. You dont get to just steam in 1000 miles an our leap into and over a passive player and get bailed out when you knock it on. It's never been that. Tupou has a right to occupy his position on the ground and so long as he doesnt attack the defender in the air, which he didnt, then it's on the defender to make the catch.

It simply comes down to this. CNK initiates the contact, and in doing so he impedes his own ability to take the ball cleanly. Tupou did nothing to attack the man in the air, he simple ran to a spot on the field and decided not to contest the ball in the air. So long as he does attack the player in the air, and again, he didnt that much is absolutely clear, Tupou did not attack CNK in the air, he's got as much right to that spot of the field as CNK does.
That is obviously the key point we disagree on then. CNK was going for the ball and not attempting to make contact with the opposition player. If a defending player leaves the ground the onus is on the attacking player not to make contact unless they are conesting for the ball. Tupou was not contesting for the ball.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25148
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » August 12, 2019, 2:50 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:45 pm
PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:33 pm
But the point, NR is, the interference in the storm instance was caused by the storm player leaping early and into a rabbitohs player impeded him, the interference CNK's instance was cause by CNK himself, leaping into and over Tupou.

And it's not how it's been enforced though. It's been enforced when a player initiates contact on a player mid air. Tupou never initiated contact. CNK did. That's why it was deemed a fair contest. You dont get to just steam in 1000 miles an our leap into and over a passive player and get bailed out when you knock it on. It's never been that. Tupou has a right to occupy his position on the ground and so long as he doesnt attack the defender in the air, which he didnt, then it's on the defender to make the catch.

It simply comes down to this. CNK initiates the contact, and in doing so he impedes his own ability to take the ball cleanly. Tupou did nothing to attack the man in the air, he simple ran to a spot on the field and decided not to contest the ball in the air. So long as he does attack the player in the air, and again, he didnt that much is absolutely clear, Tupou did not attack CNK in the air, he's got as much right to that spot of the field as CNK does.
That is obviously the key point we disagree on then. CNK was going for the ball and not attempting to make contact with the opposition player. If a defending player leaves the ground the onus is on the attacking player not to make contact unless they are conesting for the ball. Tupou was not contesting for the ball.
So why were we awarded a try only a few weeks ago against Penrith when Simo clearly makes contact with Mansaur in the air? It's a straight, clear cut penalty to penrith then and instead we had a try spun up.

If it's about contact, why was the bunker attempting to determine if Simo had attempted a tackle in the air?

Answer: It's not contact, they arent interested in contact in the air of a player, because that happens literally all the time, it's about attempting a tackle. Tupou didnt attempt a tackle on a player mid air.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by The Rickman » August 12, 2019, 2:55 pm

The way Pig is describing the rule is how I’ve always interpreted it and why I knew it would be allowed as a try yesterday. I called it at the time that there was nothing wrong with the contact, but I also wasn’t aware that they’ve seemingly changed their interpretation of these incidents this year
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22628
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by Northern Raider » August 12, 2019, 3:02 pm

PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:50 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:45 pm
PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:33 pm
But the point, NR is, the interference in the storm instance was caused by the storm player leaping early and into a rabbitohs player impeded him, the interference CNK's instance was cause by CNK himself, leaping into and over Tupou.

And it's not how it's been enforced though. It's been enforced when a player initiates contact on a player mid air. Tupou never initiated contact. CNK did. That's why it was deemed a fair contest. You dont get to just steam in 1000 miles an our leap into and over a passive player and get bailed out when you knock it on. It's never been that. Tupou has a right to occupy his position on the ground and so long as he doesnt attack the defender in the air, which he didnt, then it's on the defender to make the catch.

It simply comes down to this. CNK initiates the contact, and in doing so he impedes his own ability to take the ball cleanly. Tupou did nothing to attack the man in the air, he simple ran to a spot on the field and decided not to contest the ball in the air. So long as he does attack the player in the air, and again, he didnt that much is absolutely clear, Tupou did not attack CNK in the air, he's got as much right to that spot of the field as CNK does.
That is obviously the key point we disagree on then. CNK was going for the ball and not attempting to make contact with the opposition player. If a defending player leaves the ground the onus is on the attacking player not to make contact unless they are conesting for the ball. Tupou was not contesting for the ball.
So why were we awarded a try only a few weeks ago against Penrith when Simo clearly makes contact with Mansaur in the air? It's a straight, clear cut penalty to penrith then and instead we had a try spun up.

If it's about contact, why was the bunker attempting to determine if Simo had attempted a tackle in the air?

Answer: It's not contact, they arent interested in contact in the air of a player, because that happens literally all the time, it's about attempting a tackle. Tupou didnt attempt a tackle on a player mid air.
Those two incidents are hardly the same but if you believe they are then there's very little point continuing any debate on it.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22628
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by Northern Raider » August 12, 2019, 3:03 pm

The Rickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:55 pm
The way Pig is describing the rule is how I’ve always interpreted it and why I knew it would be allowed as a try yesterday. I called it at the time that there was nothing wrong with the contact, but I also wasn’t aware that they’ve seemingly changed their interpretation of these incidents this year
I would be more than happy to accept it if this was how they regularly interpret the rule. Unfortunately they don't.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by The Rickman » August 12, 2019, 3:04 pm

So how was the Penrith one which Pig is talking about any different to the CNK one?
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25148
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » August 12, 2019, 3:04 pm

The Rickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:55 pm
but I also wasn’t aware that they’ve seemingly changed their interpretation of these incidents this year
The only change in interpretation this year has been they seem to penalise players who tackle a player mid air after losing the contest... so in a case where both players go up to contest, and the attacker attempts a contest but ultimately ends up tackling the defender, they're awarding that a penalty now, rather than just a fair contest as it once was.

Basically you cant wrap your arms around or attack the defender, as an attacker mid air, even if you actually start that action with a legitimate contest.
people in this thread are conflating the two.

Tupou didnt attempt a tackle. He didnt attack the player in air. He existed in a spot he was occupying before CNK leaped over him to attack the football himself.

The actual rule btw:
Mid-air tackle 1. (b) It is illegal to tackle an opposing player attempting to
field a kick whilst the player is in mid-air. The catcher
must have returned to the ground before being tackled.
(See Section 15.).Applies only when a player on the
non-kicking team catches the ball on the full.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25148
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » August 12, 2019, 3:10 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 3:02 pm
Those two incidents are hardly the same but if you believe they are then there's very little point continuing any debate on it.
What's different?
You're saying where a player doesnt contest the ball and makes contact with a defender mid air, it's a penalty regardless of whether he's trying to tackle him.

Was Tupou contesting the football in mid air? No
Was Simo contesting the football in mid air? No

Did Tupou contact the defender in mid air? Yes
Did simo contact the defender in mid air? Yes

Did Tupou attempt a tackle in mid air? No
Did Simo attempt a tackle in mid air? No

Result for Tupou? Raiders knock on, Roosters try
Result for Simo? Panthers knock on, Raiders try
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by The Rickman » August 12, 2019, 3:10 pm

Yeah, by strict letter of the law there, that’s a fair try

Bunker got it right
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

yeh raiders
Laurie Daley
Posts: 15128
Joined: June 21, 2008, 3:04 pm
Favourite Player: Jack Wighton
Location: Sydney

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by yeh raiders » August 12, 2019, 3:10 pm

PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:00 pm
yeh raiders wrote:
August 12, 2019, 10:48 am
I’m so sick of the stripping rule. Ruins the flow of the game.

We’re pretty good at it, but at a crucial time yesterday we decided to spend an entire set trying to strip a ball and gave away about 60 metres when we should be looking to keep the Roosters in our half.

People argue about having more ball security... if there was a genuine issue with ball security, there’d be more errors in general play.

Throw 3 men in a tackle and 1 defenders job is to lock up the ball, then make a call for the others to peel out so he can put his entire weight behind a strip. That’s not a ball security issue, it’s obviously very difficult to keep control of it.

It’s just not Rugby League.

Further to that, both Ricky and Trent Robinson argued that it’s too complex for the refs and I totally agree.

Go back to the old rule and stop ruining Rugby League.

Basically the option for the game is offloads or more stripping - I’m choosing offloads everyday of the week.
If it's so difficult and impossible for a ball carrier to maintain possession why is this not happening 20 times a game? Why is it happening, on average about once every 0.5 games?
You take the Raiders out, who account for probably close to 1/3rd of strips, and it's probably one per 0.3 games.
So why isnt it happening more if this is a cheat code?

I agree about the officiating of it but tbh the refs have done a damn good job of it, they've gotten the overwhelming majority right.
Because as I’ve responded to you previously, this new rule is no exception to the fact that it takes time to coach rules into the game.

The Raiders are obviously training for it and as Paul Gallen mentioned the other week, the Sharks were not but he anticipates they will soon.

They have handled the officiating of it reasonably well, but we saw an instance yesterday (I’m not sure if it was our game or another) where the attacker grabbed hold of the second defenders jersey to keep him in the tackle. That was smart, but it’s going to deteriorate into an absolute mess soon enough. The signs are there already.

The game doesn’t need it and the alternative style of play which supports quick play of the balls and offloads is a thousand times better.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by The Rickman » August 12, 2019, 3:11 pm

PigRickman wrote:
Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 3:02 pm
Those two incidents are hardly the same but if you believe they are then there's very little point continuing any debate on it.
What's different?
You're saying where a player doesnt contest the ball and makes contact with a defender mid air, it's a penalty regardless of whether he's trying to tackle him.

Was Tupou contesting the football in mid air? No
Was Simo contesting the football in mid air? No

Did Tupou contact the defender in mid air? Yes
Did simo contact the defender in mid air? Yes

Did Tupou attempt a tackle in mid air? No
Did Simo attempt a tackle in mid air? No

Result for Tupou? Raiders knock on, Roosters try
Result for Simo? Panthers knock on, Raiders try
Sounds to me like the first decision is a *checks notes* howler, whereas the second one is spot on, and about time too, they’ve been doing it all day
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22628
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by Northern Raider » August 12, 2019, 3:14 pm

PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 3:10 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 3:02 pm
Those two incidents are hardly the same but if you believe they are then there's very little point continuing any debate on it.
What's different?
You're saying where a player doesnt contest the ball and makes contact with a defender mid air, it's a penalty regardless of whether he's trying to tackle him.

Was Tupou contesting the football in mid air? No
Was Simo contesting the football in mid air? No

Did Tupou contact the defender in mid air? Yes
Did simo contact the defender in mid air? Yes

Did Tupou attempt a tackle in mid air? No
Did Simo attempt a tackle in mid air? No

Result for Tupou? Raiders knock on, Roosters try
Result for Simo? Panthers knock on, Raiders try
QUite simply the 'contact' (which was being brushed by an arm) didn't move Mansour off his position at all. They weren't even close to the same type of impact.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
pickles
Jason Croker
Posts: 4695
Joined: November 18, 2007, 2:04 pm
Location: Callala Bay

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by pickles » August 12, 2019, 3:18 pm

Woodgers wrote:
August 12, 2019, 1:14 pm
pickles wrote:
August 12, 2019, 12:47 pm
Does anyone think that we have been training some things that we are not putting into games just yet? It is clear that to win big finals you need to be able to throw things at teams that they aren't able to defend but with the analysis being so on point once you have used a strategy teams will be looking for it.

The Raiders have been playing a very conservative style of football, predominantly hitting it up one pass off the ruck early on with a lot of our attack coming off the back of offloads or quick play of the balls. This was highlighted by the chooks coach when he suggested that he knew exactly what we will throw at them.

I'm wondering whether or not there are some plays that we are keeping in the bag to bring out in the big games. It just seems that we are playing within ourselves at the moment and I'm hoping that we have a plan for taking it up a notch.
Interesting you say that Pickles, I was pondering this last week while reading posts on here. There was a discussion about how to nullify Tedesco with the kicking game and commentary that we had to get that absolutely spot on and remove him from the game. My immediate thought was whatever our best plan is against the Roosters and their players, we need to keep it in the back pocket. We're definitely going to be there in September and so will they, i'm hoping that is exactly what we did. I don't think our best football yesterday for 2 points and any confidence gained out of it would be better for our long term chances. This talk of our struggles against the other top 4 or 5 sides is exactly where we want to be sitting as we move towards the finals series. We just have to stay healthy or the impact of any of that be minimised and we're a good shot this year.
There's also something about the way Ricky is approaching things at the moment that make me think he has a few things up his sleeve and there will need to be if we are going to win the big matches. I also agree that if you have what you think is the perfect game plan to beat a team you don't unveil it a month before you play them in a final.

I guess the other side of the coin was highlighted in the interview with Cronk where he talked about playing their style of footy and that they know it holds up in the big games.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25148
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » August 12, 2019, 3:20 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:45 pm
QUite simply the 'contact' (which was being brushed by an arm) didn't move Mansour off his position at all. They weren't even close to the same type of impact.
And yet:
Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 3:14 pm
If a defending player leaves the ground the onus is on the attacking player not to make contact unless they are conesting for the ball. Tupou was not contesting for the ball.
This is what im saying, you're finding inconsistency because you think the rule is about contact in the air. And it's not. It's about attacking players not being allowed to attempt tackles in mid air. Neither Simo or Tupou attempted to tackle anyone in mid air.

The Vunivalu one is different to these entirely, because they arent ruling on a mid air contest in this instance.
It's basically a penalty for taking a player out off the ball, Vunivalu mistimed his leap to such an egregious level that it was tantamount to him basically just running in and tackling a player before the ball arrived.

The key difference between the two is CNK/Topou ruling was about whether Tupou tackled CNK in the air. The Vinivalu/Rabbitohs ruling was about whether the rabbitohs player was taken out off the ball.

Totally different rulings for totally different things
Last edited by PigRickman on August 12, 2019, 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22628
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by Northern Raider » August 12, 2019, 3:28 pm

PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 3:20 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 2:45 pm
QUite simply the 'contact' (which was being brushed by an arm) didn't move Mansour off his position at all. They weren't even close to the same type of impact.
And yet:
Northern Raider wrote:
August 12, 2019, 3:14 pm
If a defending player leaves the ground the onus is on the attacking player not to make contact unless they are conesting for the ball. Tupou was not contesting for the ball.
This is what im saying, you're finding inconsistency because you think the rule is about contact in the air. And it's not. It's about attacking players not being allowed to attempt tackles in mid air. Neither Simo or Tupou attempted to tackle anyone in mid air.

The Vunivalu one is different to these entirely, because they arent ruling on a mid air contest in this instance.
It's basically a penalty for taking a player out off the ball, Vunivalu mistimed his leap to such an egregious level that it was tantamount to him basically just running in and tackling a player before the ball arrived.

The key difference between the two is CNK/Topou ruling was about whether Tupou tackled CNK in the air. The Vinivalu/Rabbitohs ruling was about whether the rabbitohs player was taken out off the ball.

Totally different rulings for totally different things
Very different levels of contact and very different outcome. A finger brushing the cheek of a player as the step past is very different to a full on elbow to the jaw. They are still both contact with the head.

Like I've said plenty of times, if the incident yesterday with Tupou and CNK had been interpreted like the bunker decided on a regular basis then I would be fine with it. It isn't unfortunately.

EDIT: I should add that the incident with Rapana (not Simo) on Mansour did concern me at the time. I was thinking they were going to take the try off us because I'd seen it many times before for such a thing.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25148
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » August 12, 2019, 3:37 pm

I dont know why i thought it was Simo... anyways we're just going around in a circle now, and as usual no one is going changing anyones mind here, haha.
So probably time to agree to disagree, old friend
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
-PJ-
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17608
Joined: May 8, 2010, 1:58 pm
Favourite Player: Joseph Tapine
Location: 416.9 km from GIO Stadium

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by -PJ- » August 12, 2019, 3:40 pm

First post since fulltime..

I've been drunk, asleep,and at work.

Who are we firing out of the cannon ?
3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment..Old Faithful
#emptythetank :shock:
I am not an alcoholic, I'm a binge drinker lacking opportunity..

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22628
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by Northern Raider » August 12, 2019, 3:42 pm

PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 3:37 pm
I dont know why i thought it was Simo... anyways we're just going around in a circle now, and as usual no one is going changing anyones mind here, haha.
So probably time to agree to disagree, old friend
Understandable mistake. One tall skinny Raiders winger looks just like any other. Figured you were auditioning for the Ch9 commentary team.
Last edited by Northern Raider on August 12, 2019, 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43051
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by The Rickman » August 12, 2019, 3:44 pm

PigRickman wrote:
August 12, 2019, 3:37 pm
I dont know why i thought it was Simo... anyways we're just going around in a circle now, and as usual no one is going changing anyones mind here, haha.
So probably time to agree to disagree, old friend
I wouldn't agree to that
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
BJ
David Furner
Posts: 3673
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: 2019 Rd 21 V Roosters: Game Day

Post by BJ » August 12, 2019, 3:45 pm

I don’t think Tupou was standing still and I don’t think Tupou had commanded his position before contact with CNK.

Tupou had just run 20m jumped and then pulled out at the very last second. It’s not like Tupou was standing still and CNK jumped over him.

In saying that, I don’t think this decision is clear either way. You can’t make a definitive ruling for or against, as it certainly hasn’t been clearly interpreted and consistently ruled by the video ref either way this season.

Post Reply