Boomercm wrote: ↑October 4, 2020, 8:29 pm
Semi is a future fan favorite. He is too green, but there are no obviously better options.
100%.
I dont doubt what so ever that this guy is going to have a really good long career and be a legit fan favourite. He's not there yet, that's all. Id have liked to do something different and go with Timoko who i think looks more NRL ready right now... but the die is cast now and we'll go with Semi. I dont hold any negativity about him as a player long term, my only concern the learning curve is very steep for him right now and we're at the point of the season where the margins are razor thin.
Boomercm wrote: ↑October 4, 2020, 8:29 pm
Semi is a future fan favorite. He is too green, but there are no obviously better options.
100%.
I dont doubt what so ever that this guy is going to have a really good long career and be a legit fan favourite. He's not there yet, that's all. Id have liked to do something different and go with Timoko who i think looks more NRL ready right now... but the die is cast now and we'll go with Semi. I dont hold any negativity about him as a player long term, my only concern the learning curve is very steep for him right now and we're at the point of the season where the margins are razor thin.
I agree. I’d have preferred to run with either HSS or Timoko because I just see more upside in those two players but I think he should have a solid career.
I don’t see a top drawer winger like a Wendell Sailor, Tuquiri or Radradra in the past or an Ado-Carr or a Sivo now or anything like that because he doesn’t seem to have quite the pace or athleticism of those players but he seems a quick learner which will hold him in good stead
Botman wrote:Looks like Annesley has come out and set the record pretty straight on the apparent "controversial" Wighton try
His position is the decision isnt challengable and a quick tap is permissable outside the attacking 10.. Simple, discission over.
It’s funny, when that happened I 100% thought it was a try but couldn’t help but think if that situation was exactly reversed we’d be putting up with the likes of gangers and GE complaining heavily about it all week
Botman wrote: ↑October 4, 2020, 7:12 pm
Looks like Annesley has come out and set the record pretty straight on the apparent "controversial" Wighton try
His position is the decision isnt challengable and a quick tap is permissable outside the attacking 10.. Simple, discission over.
That said, I think that 99% of the time over the last few years it would have been called back.
My view is early on when they were given a chance Timoko looked a class above Semi. Timoko was not overawed by playing first grade yet Semi was. They persisted with Semi (my guess is it was because he was a winger and not a step further infield).
We are at that point in the year where we just have to stick with Semi. Highlighting this decision is Rapana not handling centre as we would have hoped he would.
Rick wrote:My view is early on when they were given a chance Timoko looked a class above Semi. Timoko was not overawed by playing first grade yet Semi was. They persisted with Semi (my guess is it was because he was a winger and not a step further infield).
We are at that point in the year where we just have to stick with Semi. Highlighting this decision is Rapana not handling centre as we would have hoped he would.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Spot on, Semi is on a decent trend. His hands were good on Saturday and I reckon he's got those few goal line errors to work on with Stick this week but he's now played in 8 nrl games including a final and not looked overawed kept putting in and didn't try to hide.
It's Rapana at centre that is the issue, will be very interested to see how he shapes up against Keary/Cordner on that side probably as good of an audition for Cleary/Kikau as you'll get.
Botman wrote:Looks like Annesley has come out and set the record pretty straight on the apparent "controversial" Wighton try
His position is the decision isnt challengable and a quick tap is permissable outside the attacking 10.. Simple, discission over.
It’s funny, when that happened I 100% thought it was a try but couldn’t help but think if that situation was exactly reversed we’d be putting up with the likes of gangers and GE complaining heavily about it all week
And instead we get to have you whinge about us in hypotheticals.
You’re welcome to engage with things I actually write. Is there a decision I’ve “complained about all week” that you think was correct?
Botman wrote: ↑October 4, 2020, 7:12 pm
Looks like Annesley has come out and set the record pretty straight on the apparent "controversial" Wighton try
His position is the decision isnt challengable and a quick tap is permissable outside the attacking 10.. Simple, discission over.
That said, I think that 99% of the time over the last few years it would have been called back.
Like I typed up earlier they are mostly called back because they take the tap with a teammate in front of them or not on the mark. Or inside the 10 metres, or from an 'inside the 10' penalty. If only the players and commentators knew the rules.
Botman wrote: ↑October 4, 2020, 7:12 pm
Looks like Annesley has come out and set the record pretty straight on the apparent "controversial" Wighton try
His position is the decision isnt challengable and a quick tap is permissable outside the attacking 10.. Simple, discission over.
That said, I think that 99% of the time over the last few years it would have been called back.
Like I typed up earlier they are mostly called back because they take the tap with a teammate in front of them or not on the mark. Or inside the 10 metres, or from an 'inside the 10' penalty. If only the players and commentators knew the rules.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Exactly right. Refs have often stopped a quick tap but there's always a reason. In this case there was no reason. Opposition whinging doesn't count.
What gets lost in all this is there's zero question about the penalty being given. Fifita refused to let go and ended up dislodging the ball. He wanted to stop Wighton playing it and succeeded. The efforts to challenge were yet another tactic to slow the play down. I'd even suggest Graham knew he couldn't challenge get but tried to anyway to create a delay. Getting the ref into a debate about whether or not he could challenge would achieve the same result.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Botman wrote:Looks like Annesley has come out and set the record pretty straight on the apparent "controversial" Wighton try
His position is the decision isnt challengable and a quick tap is permissable outside the attacking 10.. Simple, discission over.
It’s funny, when that happened I 100% thought it was a try but couldn’t help but think if that situation was exactly reversed we’d be putting up with the likes of gangers and GE complaining heavily about it all week
And instead we get to have you whinge about us in hypotheticals.
You’re welcome to engage with things I actually write. Is there a decision I’ve “complained about all week” that you think was correct?
Claiming something would have happened if something that didn't happen did happen. You can't be proven wrong.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Botman wrote: ↑October 4, 2020, 7:12 pm
Looks like Annesley has come out and set the record pretty straight on the apparent "controversial" Wighton try
His position is the decision isnt challengable and a quick tap is permissable outside the attacking 10.. Simple, discission over.
That said, I think that 99% of the time over the last few years it would have been called back.
Like I typed up earlier they are mostly called back because they take the tap with a teammate in front of them or not on the mark. Or inside the 10 metres, or from an 'inside the 10' penalty. If only the players and commentators knew the rules.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
That's a really good point. Wighton did the right thing, the Sharks clocked off...especially Fatfita after giving away the penalty and Graham not knowing the rules...and Wighton cashed in.
3. Canberra Raiders (3)
Canberra looked edgy to start with but found their groove to put away the Sharks and set up another match against the Roosters. All the attention will be on that clash this week. Ricky Stuart would have been upset with the 20 points conceded but thrilled with the way halves Jack Wighton and George Williams ran the ball.
Botman wrote:Looks like Annesley has come out and set the record pretty straight on the apparent "controversial" Wighton try
His position is the decision isnt challengable and a quick tap is permissable outside the attacking 10.. Simple, discission over.
It’s funny, when that happened I 100% thought it was a try but couldn’t help but think if that situation was exactly reversed we’d be putting up with the likes of gangers and GE complaining heavily about it all week
And instead we get to have you whinge about us in hypotheticals.
You’re welcome to engage with things I actually write. Is there a decision I’ve “complained about all week” that you think was correct?
Claiming something would have happened if something that didn't happen did happen. You can't be proven wrong.
Yep. It’s weak of posters to claim how other people would react if X or Y happened.
Our fans on this site are no better or worse than the average fans on similar NRL sites. And we’re certainly better, more informed and more balanced than fans on ‘some’ of the other clubs sites.
Botman wrote:Looks like Annesley has come out and set the record pretty straight on the apparent "controversial" Wighton try
His position is the decision isnt challengable and a quick tap is permissable outside the attacking 10.. Simple, discission over.
It’s funny, when that happened I 100% thought it was a try but couldn’t help but think if that situation was exactly reversed we’d be putting up with the likes of gangers and GE complaining heavily about it all week
And instead we get to have you whinge about us in hypotheticals.
You’re welcome to engage with things I actually write. Is there a decision I’ve “complained about all week” that you think was correct?
Claiming something would have happened if something that didn't happen did happen. You can't be proven wrong.
Yep. It’s weak of posters to claim how other people would react if X or Y happened.
Our fans on this site are no better or worse than the average fans on similar NRL sites. And we’re certainly better, more informed and more balanced than fans on ‘some’ of the other clubs sites.
If Dumanis Lui scored a hattrick of tries Nickman would have grown hair.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Botman wrote:Looks like Annesley has come out and set the record pretty straight on the apparent "controversial" Wighton try
His position is the decision isnt challengable and a quick tap is permissable outside the attacking 10.. Simple, discission over.
It’s funny, when that happened I 100% thought it was a try but couldn’t help but think if that situation was exactly reversed we’d be putting up with the likes of gangers and GE complaining heavily about it all week
And instead we get to have you whinge about us in hypotheticals.
You’re welcome to engage with things I actually write. Is there a decision I’ve “complained about all week” that you think was correct?
Botman wrote: ↑October 4, 2020, 7:12 pm
Looks like Annesley has come out and set the record pretty straight on the apparent "controversial" Wighton try
His position is the decision isnt challengable and a quick tap is permissable outside the attacking 10.. Simple, discission over.
That said, I think that 99% of the time over the last few years it would have been called back.
Like I typed up earlier they are mostly called back because they take the tap with a teammate in front of them or not on the mark. Or inside the 10 metres, or from an 'inside the 10' penalty. If only the players and commentators knew the rules.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Exactly right. Refs have often stopped a quick tap but there's always a reason. In this case there was no reason. Opposition whinging doesn't count.
What gets lost in all this is there's zero question about the penalty being given. Fifita refused to let go and ended up dislodging the ball. He wanted to stop Wighton playing it and succeeded. The efforts to challenge were yet another tactic to slow the play down. I'd even suggest Graham knew he couldn't challenge get but tried to anyway to create a delay. Getting the ref into a debate about whether or not he could challenge would achieve the same result.
I think there was a possibility it could have blown up in Graham's face in a big way though (I mean...other than how it already did). I watched the replay of the second half last night and one of the commentators (?Ennis?) was literally halfway through saying "this could be a profess..." when Jack exploded through the line. A slowed down scenario, a challenge, replays, the ref having more time to think might have actually led to a sin bin for Fatfita, and then they have to do 10 minutes with 12 men when they were already teetering. The crowd was actually howling for the bin for Fatfita the moment he did it. Everyone just got distracted by Jack suddenly going Super IQ mode.
And to all the people who doubted me, hello to them as well. - Mark Webber, Raiders Ballboy and Unluckiest F1 Driver Ever
I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)
Botman wrote: ↑October 4, 2020, 7:12 pm
Looks like Annesley has come out and set the record pretty straight on the apparent "controversial" Wighton try
His position is the decision isnt challengable and a quick tap is permissable outside the attacking 10.. Simple, discission over.
That said, I think that 99% of the time over the last few years it would have been called back.
Like I typed up earlier they are mostly called back because they take the tap with a teammate in front of them or not on the mark. Or inside the 10 metres, or from an 'inside the 10' penalty. If only the players and commentators knew the rules.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Exactly right. Refs have often stopped a quick tap but there's always a reason. In this case there was no reason. Opposition whinging doesn't count.
What gets lost in all this is there's zero question about the penalty being given. Fifita refused to let go and ended up dislodging the ball. He wanted to stop Wighton playing it and succeeded. The efforts to challenge were yet another tactic to slow the play down. I'd even suggest Graham knew he couldn't challenge get but tried to anyway to create a delay. Getting the ref into a debate about whether or not he could challenge would achieve the same result.
I think there was a possibility it could have blown up in Graham's face in a big way though (I mean...other than how it already did). I watched the replay of the second half last night and one of the commentators (?Ennis?) was literally halfway through saying "this could be a profess..." when Jack exploded through the line. A slowed down scenario, a challenge, replays, the ref having more time to think might have actually led to a sin bin for Fatfita, and then they have to do 10 minutes with 12 men when they were already teetering. The crowd was actually howling for the bin for Fatfita the moment he did it. Everyone just got distracted by Jack suddenly going Super IQ mode.
There’s no doubt it was a professional foul and this wasn’t the only example. We did get a few set restarts but a lot of them were on 0 tackle or the first tackle. From my perspective if this happens more than once you should be giving a penalty instead of a set restart because it is a clear and intentional tactic to kill momentum at the start of a set and get the defence on the front foot.
The referee still has discretion to call a penalty and should more often to get rid of this tactic.
myanonymoususername wrote:
That said, I think that 99% of the time over the last few years it would have been called back.
Like I typed up earlier they are mostly called back because they take the tap with a teammate in front of them or not on the mark. Or inside the 10 metres, or from an 'inside the 10' penalty. If only the players and commentators knew the rules.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Exactly right. Refs have often stopped a quick tap but there's always a reason. In this case there was no reason. Opposition whinging doesn't count.
What gets lost in all this is there's zero question about the penalty being given. Fifita refused to let go and ended up dislodging the ball. He wanted to stop Wighton playing it and succeeded. The efforts to challenge were yet another tactic to slow the play down. I'd even suggest Graham knew he couldn't challenge get but tried to anyway to create a delay. Getting the ref into a debate about whether or not he could challenge would achieve the same result.
I think there was a possibility it could have blown up in Graham's face in a big way though (I mean...other than how it already did). I watched the replay of the second half last night and one of the commentators (?Ennis?) was literally halfway through saying "this could be a profess..." when Jack exploded through the line. A slowed down scenario, a challenge, replays, the ref having more time to think might have actually led to a sin bin for Fatfita, and then they have to do 10 minutes with 12 men when they were already teetering. The crowd was actually howling for the bin for Fatfita the moment he did it. Everyone just got distracted by Jack suddenly going Super IQ mode.
There’s no doubt it was a professional foul and this wasn’t the only example. We did get a few set restarts but a lot of them were on 0 tackle or the first tackle. From my perspective if this happens more than once you should be giving a penalty instead of a set restart because it is a clear and intentional tactic to kill momentum at the start of a set and get the defence on the front foot.
The referee still has discretion to call a penalty and should more often to get rid of this tactic.
Roosters do this. Get 3 or 4 players into the first or second tackle, peel off slowly and put the onus on the referee to make a call. Whether the ref calls it or not they have created dominance in the ruck at the beginning of the set and teams will struggle to make it back to the halfway line.
The only way to crack it is to shift it early to combat the compressed defensive line or get second phase through the middle.
gergreg wrote: ↑October 5, 2020, 9:39 am
Like I typed up earlier they are mostly called back because they take the tap with a teammate in front of them or not on the mark. Or inside the 10 metres, or from an 'inside the 10' penalty. If only the players and commentators knew the rules.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Exactly right. Refs have often stopped a quick tap but there's always a reason. In this case there was no reason. Opposition whinging doesn't count.
What gets lost in all this is there's zero question about the penalty being given. Fifita refused to let go and ended up dislodging the ball. He wanted to stop Wighton playing it and succeeded. The efforts to challenge were yet another tactic to slow the play down. I'd even suggest Graham knew he couldn't challenge get but tried to anyway to create a delay. Getting the ref into a debate about whether or not he could challenge would achieve the same result.
I think there was a possibility it could have blown up in Graham's face in a big way though (I mean...other than how it already did). I watched the replay of the second half last night and one of the commentators (?Ennis?) was literally halfway through saying "this could be a profess..." when Jack exploded through the line. A slowed down scenario, a challenge, replays, the ref having more time to think might have actually led to a sin bin for Fatfita, and then they have to do 10 minutes with 12 men when they were already teetering. The crowd was actually howling for the bin for Fatfita the moment he did it. Everyone just got distracted by Jack suddenly going Super IQ mode.
There’s no doubt it was a professional foul and this wasn’t the only example. We did get a few set restarts but a lot of them were on 0 tackle or the first tackle. From my perspective if this happens more than once you should be giving a penalty instead of a set restart because it is a clear and intentional tactic to kill momentum at the start of a set and get the defence on the front foot.
The referee still has discretion to call a penalty and should more often to get rid of this tactic.
Roosters do this. Get 3 or 4 players into the first or second tackle, peel off slowly and put the onus on the referee to make a call. Whether the ref calls it or not they have created dominance in the ruck at the beginning of the set and teams will struggle to make it back to the halfway line.
The only way to crack it is to shift it early to combat the compressed defensive line or get second phase through the middle.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
The Roosters did this to us the last time we played them at the SCG, piling numbers into every tackle. Getting 4 players in a tackle generally means you don't need to do anything illegal to slow the play down. The cost is fatigue because of the extra effort involved. I'm actually ok with teams using this as a tactic because there it is a trade off that can play out over the course of the game. The Sharks weren't slowing the ruck by getting numbers in, they were just slowing it down and should have been penalised for it. There were some that were clearly cynical and based on their belief that the referee wouldn't penalise so they were happy to concede a tackle to kill momentum.
If it keeps going like this you will also see attacking players "losing" the ball after a 6 again is called to force the penalty.
Surely the referees can see what is happening if I can see it from the stands!
bonehead wrote: ↑October 6, 2020, 11:56 am
You couldn't advocate bin for Fifita after Papa's 3 on 1 strip to gift the 2pts earlier
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
I don't think he was going to the bin for it but I also have no doubt that he was intentionally slowing the ruck down and that it was a professional foul!
bonehead wrote: ↑October 6, 2020, 11:56 am
You couldn't advocate bin for Fifita after Papa's 3 on 1 strip to gift the 2pts earlier
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
I don't think he was going to the bin for it but I also have no doubt that he was intentionally slowing the ruck down and that it was a professional foul!
bonehead wrote: ↑October 6, 2020, 11:56 am
You couldn't advocate bin for Fifita after Papa's 3 on 1 strip to gift the 2pts earlier
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
I don't think he was going to the bin for it but I also have no doubt that he was intentionally slowing the ruck down and that it was a professional foul!
it was but so was papa's
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
That wasn’t my take at all. Pretty sure he gives the second tackler up top the code word and they let go. But he was unsighted on the player who had joined tackling the legs.
The trouble with Fafita's is it came off the back of an error, not a long break, there was not a clear obvious try scoring situation given all the sharks players were virtually in position to defend, they got it right
the closest thing to a sin bin for JB taking out the sharks player on the no try to Townsend early, and they got that call right too, it was penalty sufficient, his line wasnt clear and straight enough to warrent professional foul
bonehead wrote: ↑October 6, 2020, 11:56 am
You couldn't advocate bin for Fifita after Papa's 3 on 1 strip to gift the 2pts earlier
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
I don't think he was going to the bin for it but I also have no doubt that he was intentionally slowing the ruck down and that it was a professional foul!
it was but so was papa's
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
That wasn’t my take at all. Pretty sure he gives the second tackler up top the code word and they let go. But he was unsighted on the player who had joined tackling the legs.
Botman wrote:The trouble with Fafita's is it came off the back of an error, not a long break, there was not a clear obvious try scoring situation given all the sharks players were virtually in position to defend, they got it right
the closest thing to a sin bin for JB taking out the sharks player on the no try to Townsend early, and they got that call right too, it was penalty sufficient, his line wasnt clear and straight enough to warrent professional foul
When Bateman took the attacker out my first thought was he'd be binned.
We were lucky there was a fair bit of interference in between
