Azza wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 2:25 pm
Yep. It would be so boring and predictable if the Storm and Roosters make the GF. Someone else making a run would be super exciting for the game, and I hope it is us.
Unfortunately the season has played out like a preamble to Storm vs Roosters. Those two teams have kept their heads above the pack most of the season. The teams expected to challenge them haven't lived up to billing. Not so much the Bunnies but Panthers, Broncos, Sharks and Knights have fallen well way short of expectations.
At the start of the season you wouldn't have found too many people with Raiders, Sea Eagles and Eels making the finals but they ended up 3rd, 5th and 6th. Raiders might be the only team that can realistically make a run at it. Manly are shot without Turbo. Bunnies I'm not convinced by. Forget the rest.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Azza wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 2:17 pm
Don't know. Ordinarily I'd say yes but we've been pretty bollocks at home recently.
The first weekend upset is the really important one - beat the roosters and they switch to the other side of the draw. Meaning that we might get a home prelim final against, logically, Souths and the roosters and storm get to bash each other up in Melbourne.
Yeah spot on. Provided we can win and the Storm also wins then they end up on the same side of the Prelim Final draw, that's MASSIVE for us.
The alternative means we have to go through both the Storm and the Roosters to even make the GF.
3. Canberra Raiders (4)
A great win on the road against the Sharks. Aidan Sezer stood up and you have to give credit where credit it is due. He probably hasn't convinced too many people this year that he can get the job done, but I'll put my hand up after being critical earlier in the year. He came up with a performance that will instil a lot of confidence in Ricky Stuart and the players that he can steer the team around.
A thrilling golden-point win over Cronulla on the weekend kept Canberra in the top four but they aren't completely assured of a finals double chance. With fifth-placed Manly trailing the Green Machine by one win, a victory against the Warriors will ensure they finish third. South Sydney (fourth) are level on points but streets behind on for-and-against. Even if the Raiders lose and the Rabbitohs and Sea Eagles salute in their respective matches, Canberra's enviable points-differential total should solidify them in the four.
I wouldn't have thought the Raiders could realistically finish in fifth. Manly would need to win, and the Raiders would need to lose by a combination of more than 88 points... and Souths would need to win.
greeneyed wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 3:26 pm
I wouldn't have thought the Raiders could realistically finish in fifth. Manly would need to win, and the Raiders would need to lose by a combination of more than 88 points... and Souths would need to win.
I guess if we rested half our **** team and got lapped by 50 it's a small possibility.
greeneyed wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 3:26 pm
I wouldn't have thought the Raiders could realistically finish in fifth. Manly would need to win, and the Raiders would need to lose by a combination of more than 88 points... and Souths would need to win.
I guess if we rested half our **** team and got lapped by 50 it's a small possibility.
I couldn't watch the game yesterday so I'm watching the replay now and I don't know if it's already been answered but why was Horsburgh's try disallowed?
What's Sia supposed to do after he passes the ball? Start running toward the in-goal?
Christmas Ape wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 4:33 pm
I couldn't watch the game yesterday so I'm watching the replay now and I don't know if it's already been answered but why was Horsburgh's try disallowed?
What's Sia supposed to do after he passes the ball? Start running toward the in-goal?
I thought it was tough but others on here have said it was the right call. There weren’t many replays shown and I have to say the bloke in the bunker must have had a hot date after the game because he didn’t take a second look at anything before make a call all game.
If your watching the replay can you try and get to the bottom of that feral bomb that was called to have bounced dead in goal but on replay appeared clearly in. I suspect the replay showed the second bounce but good if you could confirm what happened as a few of us were head scratching on that one. Pretty sure it was Hodgo who kicked it.
I think the interpretation stinks. Sure, if you're a decoy runner, you can't stop in the line. But the idea that a bloke who turns and offloads the ball then has to somehow disappear from his position on the field is downright ridiculous! If you asked my uncle or grandfather who were heavily involved in coaching and managing footy teams at just about every level when I was younger... they'd shake their heads at this interpretation... and say, you've got to be kidding.
I think if the Refs had sent it up as a ‘try’ the video ref wouldn’t have reversed it.
I’d like the video ref to support the on field call more often than overrule decisions Willy nilly.
I have certainly seen many similar tries over the years get awarded without issue and the commentators make a big deal about what a great interchange of passing it was.
greeneyed wrote:I think the interpretation stinks. Sure, if you're a decoy runner, you can't stop in the line. But the idea that a bloke who turns and offloads the ball then has to somehow disappear from his position on the field is downright ridiculous! If you asked my uncle or grandfather who were heavily involved in coaching and managing footy teams at just about every level when I was younger... they'd shake their heads at this interpretation... and say, you've got to be kidding.
They’d also say that you should thump your opposite number in the scrum too, so... there is that
greeneyed wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 4:58 pm
I think the interpretation stinks. Sure, if you're a decoy runner, you can't stop in the line. But the idea that a bloke who turns and offloads the ball then has to somehow disappear from his position on the field is downright ridiculous! If you asked my uncle or grandfather who were heavily involved in coaching and managing footy teams at just about every level when I was younger... they'd shake their heads at this interpretation... and say, you've got to be kidding.
I agree it’s a dumb interpretation. To take it to the extreme, what happens if a centre passes to the winger and on releasing the ball immediately impeads the cover defence coming across from reaching the winger? Players can’t disappear and if they are part of the play they shouldn’t have to. Decoys are a different story but it is a silly interpretation.
There wasn't a good replay of the Horsburgh try yesterday but having just watched it I can't agree with the decision. If Sia is a decoy runner who has stopped in the line the it is the right call every day of the week but given he passes the ball and is part of the play I think he has earned his right to be there as a ball carrier. I don't think the video ref went back far enough to realise that Sia had passed the ball, either that or Klein really wants to see the Hors nudei run at the end of the season!
On the other hand Sutton played the single longest advantage I have ever seen in rugby league, it was 2 or 3 tackles before he went back for the penalty! I didn't mind it at all and we didn't manage to take advantage but you don't see it often!
it was a rough call that imo would have gone our way if it wasnt sent up a try.
Keep in mind its the same peanut who sent up the right side which was clealy planted on the line (and looked worse in real time) a try.
also prior is on his left, he offloads out of the right hand and the space is because graham comes in to help tackle papalii. I would have been ok with the call if he pushed Sia out of the way or made a bit more effort then looking at sia slightly brushing him and throwing up his arms as if he has had his head taken off.
On another note, Jarrod Croker charging out of the line, I think is something we should look at, him and wighton seem to be on different pages defensively.
While we're discussing decisions, and just stirring the pot here a little, how about that penalty 2 tackles after the late hit on Sezer. Can you imagine this place if .....
greeneyed wrote:I think the interpretation stinks. Sure, if you're a decoy runner, you can't stop in the line. But the idea that a bloke who turns and offloads the ball then has to somehow disappear from his position on the field is downright ridiculous! If you asked my uncle or grandfather who were heavily involved in coaching and managing footy teams at just about every level when I was younger... they'd shake their heads at this interpretation... and say, you've got to be kidding.
They’d also say that you should thump your opposite number in the scrum too, so... there is that
Now I know you're defending the NRL... I know I'm on the right track!
gergreg wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 5:38 pm
While we're discussing decisions, and just stirring the pot here a little, how about that penalty 2 tackles after the late hit on Sezer. Can you imagine this place if .....
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
They did explain it on the broadcast. Graham Annesley went through the exact wording of the rule. There is absolutely no doubt about what the rule says and it was properly applied.
gergreg wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 5:38 pm
While we're discussing decisions, and just stirring the pot here a little, how about that penalty 2 tackles after the late hit on Sezer. Can you imagine this place if .....
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
They did explain it on the broadcast. Graham Annesley went through the exact wording of the rule. There is absolutely no doubt about what the rule says and it was properly applied.
Yes I just watched it. Have you ever, in the whole time you have watched rugby league, seen that before?
papabear wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 5:34 pm
it was a rough call that imo would have gone our way if it wasnt sent up a try.
Keep in mind its the same peanut who sent up the right side which was clealy planted on the line (and looked worse in real time) a try.
also prior is on his left, he offloads out of the right hand and the space is because graham comes in to help tackle papalii. I would have been ok with the call if he pushed Sia out of the way or made a bit more effort then looking at sia slightly brushing him and throwing up his arms as if he has had his head taken off.
On another note, Jarrod Croker charging out of the line, I think is something we should look at, him and wighton seem to be on different pages defensively.
Croker is now second in the NRL behind Anthony Don for try causes but according to the GH his defence cannot be looked at, questioned or discussed in anyway.
gergreg wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 5:38 pm
While we're discussing decisions, and just stirring the pot here a little, how about that penalty 2 tackles after the late hit on Sezer. Can you imagine this place if .....
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
They did explain it on the broadcast. Graham Annesley went through the exact wording of the rule. There is absolutely no doubt about what the rule says and it was properly applied.
Yes I just watched it. Have you ever, in the whole time you have watched rugby league, seen that before?
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I can't point you to a particular instance off the top of my head... but it didn't surprise me at all.
I reckon it's a fair call. Sia offloads then Papa comes from left to right, running around the back of Sia causing Prior to change direction to make the tackle. It's an old fashioned shepherd.
The confusing bit was when Sutton sent it to the bunker he called Sia the "lead runner" which he clearly wasn't.
pickles wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 5:27 pm
There wasn't a good replay of the Horsburgh try yesterday but having just watched it I can't agree with the decision. If Sia is a decoy runner who has stopped in the line the it is the right call every day of the week but given he passes the ball and is part of the play I think he has earned his right to be there as a ball carrier. I don't think the video ref went back far enough to realise that Sia had passed the ball, either that or Klein really wants to see the Hors nudei run at the end of the season!
On the other hand Sutton played the single longest advantage I have ever seen in rugby league, it was 2 or 3 tackles before he went back for the penalty! I didn't mind it at all and we didn't manage to take advantage but you don't see it often!
That's literally the rule though. If it is foul play, it is the refs discreation when advantage has been played. He can wait all set to call a penalty if he wants. Completely different scenario than if it were a knock on.
gergreg wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 5:38 pm
While we're discussing decisions, and just stirring the pot here a little, how about that penalty 2 tackles after the late hit on Sezer. Can you imagine this place if .....
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
They did explain it on the broadcast. Graham Annesley went through the exact wording of the rule. There is absolutely no doubt about what the rule says and it was properly applied.
Yes I just watched it. Have you ever, in the whole time you have watched rugby league, seen that before?
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I can't point you to a particular instance off the top of my head... but it didn't surprise me at all.
People seem to be confusing advantage played after a mistake with advantage after foul play. Very very different scenarios. Think about the kind of advantage you get from kicking for touch/a conversion for goal compared to winning the feed of the scrum. It was absolutely fair that they went back and blew the penalty, and if it was against us I certaintly wouldn't be blowing up about it.
gergreg wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 5:38 pm
While we're discussing decisions, and just stirring the pot here a little, how about that penalty 2 tackles after the late hit on Sezer. Can you imagine this place if .....
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
They did explain it on the broadcast. Graham Annesley went through the exact wording of the rule. There is absolutely no doubt about what the rule says and it was properly applied.
Yes I just watched it. Have you ever, in the whole time you have watched rugby league, seen that before?
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I can't point you to a particular instance off the top of my head... but it didn't surprise me at all.
People seem to be confusing advantage played after a mistake with advantage after foul play. Very very different scenarios. Think about the kind of advantage you get from kicking for touch compared to winning the feed of the scrum. It was absolutely fair that they went back and blew the penalty, and if it was against us I certaintly wouldn't be blowing up about it.
I saw the same interpretation or explanation of the rule as GE did and also maybe you - from Annesley. I'm just asking if GE, or anybody has seen that before. I have never seen a referee go back that far - unless he has been tipped off by the bunker/VR.
I'd be pretty **** annoyed if the same thing happened to the Raiders.
Christmas Ape wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 5:57 pm
I reckon it's a fair call. Sia offloads then Papa comes from left to right, running around the back of Sia causing Prior to change direction to make the tackle. It's an old fashioned shepherd.
The confusing bit was when Sutton sent it to the bunker he called Sia the "lead runner" which he clearly wasn't.
greeneyed wrote:
They did explain it on the broadcast. Graham Annesley went through the exact wording of the rule. There is absolutely no doubt about what the rule says and it was properly applied.
Yes I just watched it. Have you ever, in the whole time you have watched rugby league, seen that before?
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I can't point you to a particular instance off the top of my head... but it didn't surprise me at all.
People seem to be confusing advantage played after a mistake with advantage after foul play. Very very different scenarios. Think about the kind of advantage you get from kicking for touch compared to winning the feed of the scrum. It was absolutely fair that they went back and blew the penalty, and if it was against us I certaintly wouldn't be blowing up about it.
I saw the same interpretation or explanation of the rule as GE did and also maybe you - from Annesley. I'm just asking if GE, or anybody has seen that before. I have never seen a referee go back that far - unless he has been tipped off by the bunker/VR.
I'd be pretty **** annoyed if the same thing happened to the Raiders.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
But I don't understand why when that is what the rule clearly states.