gergreg wrote: ↑August 27, 2023, 1:18 pm
I thought we were dudded with a few calls and quite a few piggy back penalties getting them out of trouble. The decision to take the two was annoying but not out of character for our 'negative' playing style.
But our main problem yet again is coaching and selection. We were torn apart by a young, arrogant, fast fullback with x-factor. All those happy clappers claiming we have overachieved with a mediocre squad. We have a player just like that but not only does our coach refuse to select him, he refuses to play him in that position at Cup level. He is currently the best fullback at the club. It's infuriating.
We are playing the same way we did last year, but then last year he realised we needed to do something or we were going to miss the finals and his coaching extension was being questioned. He looked gone, rabbits in the headlights stuff. Savage saved his ****. This year, thanks to a soft draw we've been able to play that same crap style as last year and scrape through without Savage. We need some speed in the backline and it's been no different for a long time now.
Correct! Stuart's core performance indictor is to make the eight. His conservative style of coaching is predicated on this. No expectations of going deep into the finals. 2019 was an aberration due to the efforts of the Englishmen and the combination of Leilua and Rapana.
Totally agree. We def need to play with more creative players. Instead we stuck Wighton at 6 and persisted with Croker at 3. Also Whitehead took a spot.
Rapana is a great but he is a backup fullback. Kris isn't a fullback. Why the hell did we not give Savage his spot back after last year is beyond me. Even ease him in back in winger and switch between him and Kris.
And to illustrate the point most of us are making, our young, exciting NSW Cup side flogged the top of the table Bears today. And did it away from home.
Hard to believe none of them can crack first grade.
Northern Raider wrote: ↑August 26, 2023, 10:05 pm
If he was denied the opportunity to compete for the ball we would not have won the contest for the ball.
Do you deny Young deliberately took a line to impede Cobbo off the ball illegally?
He very cleary and inarguably illegally blocked Cobbo... That's a penalty on it's own on review. You can not reasonably argue he did not do that.
And do you deny that Young made contact with the player before the player was able to contest the ball?
And he contacted Cobbo before the contest, Clear as day. Incidental contact sure? But when combined with the deliberate attempt to impede...
Both are facts. He did do both things.
Once that goes to the bunker, and on review, its' black and white. He acted illegally. End of story.
And that's about all ive got to say about it. You can disagree, but you're unfortunately wrong. So all the best.
I’m reminded of an incident not long ago, when Sebastian Kris was about to score a try, there was high contact to his face, he dropped the ball and failed to score. We were told by the bunker that the tackler was just making a tackle, and if I recall correctly we were later told that the contact was incidental so no penalty. The bunker makes discretionary calls all the time. But, yes, I’m sure on Monday that Mr Annesley will tell us, blah, blah, blah… PENALTY BRONCOS!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If you watch it again slowly and break it down.
- Hudson was looking at Cobbo
- Hudson was running towards Cobbo
- Hudson, while *running* DOES NOT touch Cobbo at all. Cobbo was running exactly the same line he intended to run. The fact Hudson was looking at Cobbo made no different to Cobbo's running line.
At this point there is nothing that warranted a penalty. If Hudson interfered or in some way touched Cobbo then different story.
- Hudson then proceeds to touch (tap) Cobbo on the shoulder. In no way does this impact Cobbo's ability to play at the ball. Nor did it disadvantage Cobbo.
If you look at things black and white, sure, you can argue because of the tap there is a penalty. However in rugby league contact such as this is never penalised.
It was a big call at a crucial time of the game for us.
I would have given us a small 10 to 30% chance of scoring in that play. Our attack is terrible but who knows.
Thats my 2 cents.
We can debate the impact he had but he still gave the officials a reason to penalise him. The fact he made no impact on Cobbo just illustrates what a dumb play it was. He had zero influence and still managed to give a penalty away. Brain dead.
Northern Raider wrote: ↑August 26, 2023, 10:05 pm
If he was denied the opportunity to compete for the ball we would not have won the contest for the ball.
Do you deny Young deliberately took a line to impede Cobbo off the ball illegally?
He very cleary and inarguably illegally blocked Cobbo... That's a penalty on it's own on review. You can not reasonably argue he did not do that.
And do you deny that Young made contact with the player before the player was able to contest the ball?
And he contacted Cobbo before the contest, Clear as day. Incidental contact sure? But when combined with the deliberate attempt to impede...
Both are facts. He did do both things.
Once that goes to the bunker, and on review, its' black and white. He acted illegally. End of story.
And that's about all ive got to say about it. You can disagree, but you're unfortunately wrong. So all the best.
I’m reminded of an incident not long ago, when Sebastian Kris was about to score a try, there was high contact to his face, he dropped the ball and failed to score. We were told by the bunker that the tackler was just making a tackle, and if I recall correctly we were later told that the contact was incidental so no penalty. The bunker makes discretionary calls all the time. But, yes, I’m sure on Monday that Mr Annesley will tell us, blah, blah, blah… PENALTY BRONCOS!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If you watch it again slowly and break it down.
- Hudson was looking at Cobbo
- Hudson was running towards Cobbo
- Hudson, while *running* DOES NOT touch Cobbo at all. Cobbo was running exactly the same line he intended to run. The fact Hudson was looking at Cobbo made no different to Cobbo's running line.
At this point there is nothing that warranted a penalty. If Hudson interfered or in some way touched Cobbo then different story.
- Hudson then proceeds to touch (tap) Cobbo on the shoulder. In no way does this impact Cobbo's ability to play at the ball. Nor did it disadvantage Cobbo.
If you look at things black and white, sure, you can argue because of the tap there is a penalty. However in rugby league contact such as this is never penalised.
It was a big call at a crucial time of the game for us.
I would have given us a small 10 to 30% chance of scoring in that play. Our attack is terrible but who knows.
Thats my 2 cents.
We can debate the impact he had but he still gave the officials a reason to penalise him. The fact he made no impact on Cobbo just illustrates what a dumb play it was. He had zero influence and still managed to give a penalty away. Brain dead.
You're judging the play... im trying to be objective about the decision.
The definition of an obstruction is-
Chase blockers or ‘escorts’
The escort rule will be breached if a chaser obstructs an opposition player from contesting a kick, except in the case where a chaser obstructs an opposition player from contesting a kick.
Botman wrote:
Do you deny Young deliberately took a line to impede Cobbo off the ball illegally?
He very cleary and inarguably illegally blocked Cobbo... That's a penalty on it's own on review. You can not reasonably argue he did not do that.
And do you deny that Young made contact with the player before the player was able to contest the ball?
And he contacted Cobbo before the contest, Clear as day. Incidental contact sure? But when combined with the deliberate attempt to impede...
Both are facts. He did do both things.
Once that goes to the bunker, and on review, its' black and white. He acted illegally. End of story.
And that's about all ive got to say about it. You can disagree, but you're unfortunately wrong. So all the best.
I’m reminded of an incident not long ago, when Sebastian Kris was about to score a try, there was high contact to his face, he dropped the ball and failed to score. We were told by the bunker that the tackler was just making a tackle, and if I recall correctly we were later told that the contact was incidental so no penalty. The bunker makes discretionary calls all the time. But, yes, I’m sure on Monday that Mr Annesley will tell us, blah, blah, blah… PENALTY BRONCOS!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If you watch it again slowly and break it down.
- Hudson was looking at Cobbo
- Hudson was running towards Cobbo
- Hudson, while *running* DOES NOT touch Cobbo at all. Cobbo was running exactly the same line he intended to run. The fact Hudson was looking at Cobbo made no different to Cobbo's running line.
At this point there is nothing that warranted a penalty. If Hudson interfered or in some way touched Cobbo then different story.
- Hudson then proceeds to touch (tap) Cobbo on the shoulder. In no way does this impact Cobbo's ability to play at the ball. Nor did it disadvantage Cobbo.
If you look at things black and white, sure, you can argue because of the tap there is a penalty. However in rugby league contact such as this is never penalised.
It was a big call at a crucial time of the game for us.
I would have given us a small 10 to 30% chance of scoring in that play. Our attack is terrible but who knows.
Thats my 2 cents.
We can debate the impact he had but he still gave the officials a reason to penalise him. The fact he made no impact on Cobbo just illustrates what a dumb play it was. He had zero influence and still managed to give a penalty away. Brain dead.
You're judging the play... im trying to be objective about the decision.
The definition of an obstruction is-
Chase blockers or ‘escorts’
The escort rule will be breached if a chaser obstructs an opposition player from contesting a kick, except in the case where a chaser obstructs an opposition player from contesting a kick.
Once you set your eyes on an opposition player and make contact with them while making zero play at the ball you're leaving it in the official's hands.
Greentothecore wrote: ↑August 27, 2023, 9:58 am
It is interesting if you look at objective reaction to the escort penalty
Just some of the people who thought the penalty was ridiculous:
Andrew Johns
Phil Gould
Buzz Rothfield
Even Brandy said it was a “harsh call”. You know something’s up when he makes that kind of comment on a Raiders penalty.
greeneyed wrote: ↑August 27, 2023, 9:38 am
I’m reminded of an incident not long ago, when Sebastian Kris was about to score a try, there was high contact to his face, he dropped the ball and failed to score. We were told by the bunker that the tackler was just making a tackle, and if I recall correctly we were later told that the contact was incidental so no penalty. The bunker makes discretionary calls all the time. But, yes, I’m sure on Monday that Mr Annesley will tell us, blah, blah, blah… PENALTY BRONCOS!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If you watch it again slowly and break it down.
- Hudson was looking at Cobbo
- Hudson was running towards Cobbo
- Hudson, while *running* DOES NOT touch Cobbo at all. Cobbo was running exactly the same line he intended to run. The fact Hudson was looking at Cobbo made no different to Cobbo's running line.
At this point there is nothing that warranted a penalty. If Hudson interfered or in some way touched Cobbo then different story.
- Hudson then proceeds to touch (tap) Cobbo on the shoulder. In no way does this impact Cobbo's ability to play at the ball. Nor did it disadvantage Cobbo.
If you look at things black and white, sure, you can argue because of the tap there is a penalty. However in rugby league contact such as this is never penalised.
It was a big call at a crucial time of the game for us.
I would have given us a small 10 to 30% chance of scoring in that play. Our attack is terrible but who knows.
Thats my 2 cents.
We can debate the impact he had but he still gave the officials a reason to penalise him. The fact he made no impact on Cobbo just illustrates what a dumb play it was. He had zero influence and still managed to give a penalty away. Brain dead.
You're judging the play... im trying to be objective about the decision.
The definition of an obstruction is-
Chase blockers or ‘escorts’
The escort rule will be breached if a chaser obstructs an opposition player from contesting a kick, except in the case where a chaser obstructs an opposition player from contesting a kick.
Once you set your eyes on an opposition player and make contact with them while making zero play at the ball you're leaving it in the official's hands.
Settting eyes on a player isn't the rule. Contact that was made had absolutely no impact to the outcome though.
"obstructs an opposition player from contesting" ... which didn't happen!!!!
- Hudson was looking at Cobbo
- Hudson was running towards Cobbo
- Hudson, while *running* DOES NOT touch Cobbo at all. Cobbo was running exactly the same line he intended to run. The fact Hudson was looking at Cobbo made no different to Cobbo's running line.
At this point there is nothing that warranted a penalty. If Hudson interfered or in some way touched Cobbo then different story.
- Hudson then proceeds to touch (tap) Cobbo on the shoulder. In no way does this impact Cobbo's ability to play at the ball. Nor did it disadvantage Cobbo.
If you look at things black and white, sure, you can argue because of the tap there is a penalty. However in rugby league contact such as this is never penalised.
It was a big call at a crucial time of the game for us.
I would have given us a small 10 to 30% chance of scoring in that play. Our attack is terrible but who knows.
Thats my 2 cents.
We can debate the impact he had but he still gave the officials a reason to penalise him. The fact he made no impact on Cobbo just illustrates what a dumb play it was. He had zero influence and still managed to give a penalty away. Brain dead.
You're judging the play... im trying to be objective about the decision.
The definition of an obstruction is-
Chase blockers or ‘escorts’
The escort rule will be breached if a chaser obstructs an opposition player from contesting a kick, except in the case where a chaser obstructs an opposition player from contesting a kick.
Once you set your eyes on an opposition player and make contact with them while making zero play at the ball you're leaving it in the official's hands.
Settting eyes on a player isn't the rule. Contact that was made had absolutely no impact to the outcome though.
"obstructs an opposition player from contesting" ... which didn't happen!!!!
Last part is subjective - which is why it's up to the official. Don't make contact and there's no issue.
IF AI was ever able to make the players unidentifiable I think it would be very interesting to see how refs would call plays re watching a game.
It would really show how much ( hopefully unintentional) bias goes into a refs decision making
We can debate the impact he had but he still gave the officials a reason to penalise him. The fact he made no impact on Cobbo just illustrates what a dumb play it was. He had zero influence and still managed to give a penalty away. Brain dead.
You're judging the play... im trying to be objective about the decision.
The definition of an obstruction is-
Chase blockers or ‘escorts’
The escort rule will be breached if a chaser obstructs an opposition player from contesting a kick, except in the case where a chaser obstructs an opposition player from contesting a kick.
Once you set your eyes on an opposition player and make contact with them while making zero play at the ball you're leaving it in the official's hands.
Settting eyes on a player isn't the rule. Contact that was made had absolutely no impact to the outcome though.
"obstructs an opposition player from contesting" ... which didn't happen!!!!
Last part is subjective - which is why it's up to the official. Don't make contact and there's no issue.
Ill make it binary... Hudson didn't affect Cobbo at all.
I’ve put this forum down for a few weeks, been hilarious and frustrating watching certain blokes here troll re. Croker and the persistent selection.
Here are my thoughts on last night:
Attitude
How can we be fair dinkum complaining about refereeing decisions given the team we ran out last night? Granted there were some rubs of the green we did not receive, but a lot of those calls go each way in games every week. The inconsistency of the NRL, you know what you are in for, so why weren’t we ready to grind against the bad calls too?
Team selection
This is a big one. Although blokes here like riaan will tell you otherwise, it was very clear that Croker is not up to first grade. He himself has said it, and Ricky has said it by picking him on the bench and playing Croker in garbage time, electively handicapping ourselves with 16 v 17 players.
Furthermore, Kris has been playing fullback all year. It has been rammed down our throat he is our current selection at full back and that is too bad. Don’t get me wrong, Rapana was best on ground last week. So why oh why then is Kris played at a position he has not played all year? Al whilst Savage is in reserve grade, scoring hat tricks the week before, but can’t get picked at that position. The position he has seemingly been told that he will play at now with the coming through of Chevy Stewart.
If you are defending these selections so far, okay. Tell me why Croker was on the bench for 77 minutes instead of Savage then? You are clearly prioritising ticket sales, the Croker Wighton procession, whatever. But actually own it.
Bloody say we are giving Jarrod one last hurrah at home for his last game here. Not dribble on about how “oh we got so dudded by the NRL tonight” etc etc.
You came with the priority of sending off Jarrod because he has been a good boy. Reminder, the bloke doesn’t even think he can play to the standard himself. Winning was second priority, and now the season comes down to an away game against Cronulla.
It’s almost over boys and girls.
We can relax over summer while the boys are put through THE toughest pre season ever.
I’m so frustrated with the team.
I played rugby league from the age of 5 thru to 31 and I’ve always known that planting your foot beyond the dead ball line and catching the ball from the kickoff will result in a penalty to your team on halfway.
Why doesn’t Matt Frawley know this ?
3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment..Old Faithful
#emptythetank
CrabLord wrote: ↑August 27, 2023, 6:49 pm
I’ve put this forum down for a few weeks, been hilarious and frustrating watching certain blokes here troll re. Croker and the persistent selection.
Here are my thoughts on last night:
Attitude
How can we be fair dinkum complaining about refereeing decisions given the team we ran out last night? Granted there were some rubs of the green we did not receive, but a lot of those calls go each way in games every week. The inconsistency of the NRL, you know what you are in for, so why weren’t we ready to grind against the bad calls too?
Team selection
This is a big one. Although blokes here like riaan will tell you otherwise, it was very clear that Croker is not up to first grade. He himself has said it, and Ricky has said it by picking him on the bench and playing Croker in garbage time, electively handicapping ourselves with 16 v 17 players.
Furthermore, Kris has been playing fullback all year. It has been rammed down our throat he is our current selection at full back and that is too bad. Don’t get me wrong, Rapana was best on ground last week. So why oh why then is Kris played at a position he has not played all year? Al whilst Savage is in reserve grade, scoring hat tricks the week before, but can’t get picked at that position. The position he has seemingly been told that he will play at now with the coming through of Chevy Stewart.
If you are defending these selections so far, okay. Tell me why Croker was on the bench for 77 minutes instead of Savage then? You are clearly prioritising ticket sales, the Croker Wighton procession, whatever. But actually own it.
Bloody say we are giving Jarrod one last hurrah at home for his last game here. Not dribble on about how “oh we got so dudded by the NRL tonight” etc etc.
You came with the priority of sending off Jarrod because he has been a good boy. Reminder, the bloke doesn’t even think he can play to the standard himself. Winning was second priority, and now the season comes down to an away game against Cronulla.
Don’t forget Crablord, the wins ain’t important.
Ricky shoves it in our faces when we win
AND
Blames the refs when we lose.
This circus is his circus, and he’s head clown.
3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment..Old Faithful
#emptythetank
CrabLord wrote: ↑August 27, 2023, 6:49 pm
I’ve put this forum down for a few weeks, been hilarious and frustrating watching certain blokes here troll re. Croker and the persistent selection.
Here are my thoughts on last night:
Attitude
How can we be fair dinkum complaining about refereeing decisions given the team we ran out last night? Granted there were some rubs of the green we did not receive, but a lot of those calls go each way in games every week. The inconsistency of the NRL, you know what you are in for, so why weren’t we ready to grind against the bad calls too?
Team selection
This is a big one. Although blokes here like riaan will tell you otherwise, it was very clear that Croker is not up to first grade. He himself has said it, and Ricky has said it by picking him on the bench and playing Croker in garbage time, electively handicapping ourselves with 16 v 17 players.
Furthermore, Kris has been playing fullback all year. It has been rammed down our throat he is our current selection at full back and that is too bad. Don’t get me wrong, Rapana was best on ground last week. So why oh why then is Kris played at a position he has not played all year? Al whilst Savage is in reserve grade, scoring hat tricks the week before, but can’t get picked at that position. The position he has seemingly been told that he will play at now with the coming through of Chevy Stewart.
If you are defending these selections so far, okay. Tell me why Croker was on the bench for 77 minutes instead of Savage then? You are clearly prioritising ticket sales, the Croker Wighton procession, whatever. But actually own it.
Bloody say we are giving Jarrod one last hurrah at home for his last game here. Not dribble on about how “oh we got so dudded by the NRL tonight” etc etc.
You came with the priority of sending off Jarrod because he has been a good boy. Reminder, the bloke doesn’t even think he can play to the standard himself. Winning was second priority, and now the season comes down to an away game against Cronulla.
Really well said. Nothing you wrote here any reasonable footy enthusiast could debate.
I'd be giving Savage a run next week. Absolutely nothing to lose.
CrabLord wrote: ↑August 27, 2023, 6:49 pm
I’ve put this forum down for a few weeks, been hilarious and frustrating watching certain blokes here troll re. Croker and the persistent selection.
Here are my thoughts on last night:
Attitude
How can we be fair dinkum complaining about refereeing decisions given the team we ran out last night? Granted there were some rubs of the green we did not receive, but a lot of those calls go each way in games every week. The inconsistency of the NRL, you know what you are in for, so why weren’t we ready to grind against the bad calls too?
Team selection
This is a big one. Although blokes here like riaan will tell you otherwise, it was very clear that Croker is not up to first grade. He himself has said it, and Ricky has said it by picking him on the bench and playing Croker in garbage time, electively handicapping ourselves with 16 v 17 players.
Furthermore, Kris has been playing fullback all year. It has been rammed down our throat he is our current selection at full back and that is too bad. Don’t get me wrong, Rapana was best on ground last week. So why oh why then is Kris played at a position he has not played all year? Al whilst Savage is in reserve grade, scoring hat tricks the week before, but can’t get picked at that position. The position he has seemingly been told that he will play at now with the coming through of Chevy Stewart.
If you are defending these selections so far, okay. Tell me why Croker was on the bench for 77 minutes instead of Savage then? You are clearly prioritising ticket sales, the Croker Wighton procession, whatever. But actually own it.
Bloody say we are giving Jarrod one last hurrah at home for his last game here. Not dribble on about how “oh we got so dudded by the NRL tonight” etc etc.
You came with the priority of sending off Jarrod because he has been a good boy. Reminder, the bloke doesn’t even think he can play to the standard himself. Winning was second priority, and now the season comes down to an away game against Cronulla.
Really well said. Nothing you wrote here any reasonable footy enthusiast could debate.
I'd be giving Savage a run next week. Absolutely nothing to lose.
Au contraire .... Ricky has quite a bit to lose by giving him a go. His year long stupidity of picking Kris at fullback for one. But then again he hasn't given Savage a run in reserves at fullback, so why would he select him now? If not selecting him as our first choice fullback wasn't stupid enough, then refusing to let him develop in reserves when we have no other viable option (aside from a 34 y/o Rapana) is magnitudes dumber on the Rickter scale.
CrabLord wrote: ↑August 27, 2023, 6:49 pm
I’ve put this forum down for a few weeks, been hilarious and frustrating watching certain blokes here troll re. Croker and the persistent selection.
Here are my thoughts on last night:
Attitude
How can we be fair dinkum complaining about refereeing decisions given the team we ran out last night? Granted there were some rubs of the green we did not receive, but a lot of those calls go each way in games every week. The inconsistency of the NRL, you know what you are in for, so why weren’t we ready to grind against the bad calls too?
Team selection
This is a big one. Although blokes here like riaan will tell you otherwise, it was very clear that Croker is not up to first grade. He himself has said it, and Ricky has said it by picking him on the bench and playing Croker in garbage time, electively handicapping ourselves with 16 v 17 players.
Furthermore, Kris has been playing fullback all year. It has been rammed down our throat he is our current selection at full back and that is too bad. Don’t get me wrong, Rapana was best on ground last week. So why oh why then is Kris played at a position he has not played all year? Al whilst Savage is in reserve grade, scoring hat tricks the week before, but can’t get picked at that position. The position he has seemingly been told that he will play at now with the coming through of Chevy Stewart.
If you are defending these selections so far, okay. Tell me why Croker was on the bench for 77 minutes instead of Savage then? You are clearly prioritising ticket sales, the Croker Wighton procession, whatever. But actually own it.
Bloody say we are giving Jarrod one last hurrah at home for his last game here. Not dribble on about how “oh we got so dudded by the NRL tonight” etc etc.
You came with the priority of sending off Jarrod because he has been a good boy. Reminder, the bloke doesn’t even think he can play to the standard himself. Winning was second priority, and now the season comes down to an away game against Cronulla.
Really well said. Nothing you wrote here any reasonable footy enthusiast could debate.
I'd be giving Savage a run next week. Absolutely nothing to lose.
Au contraire .... Ricky has quite a bit to lose by giving him a go. His year long stupidity of picking Kris at fullback for one. But then again he hasn't given Savage a run in reserves at fullback, so why would he select him now? If not selecting him as our first choice fullback wasn't stupid enough, then refusing to let him develop in reserves when we have no other viable option (aside from a 34 y/o Rapana) is magnitudes dumber on the Rickter scale.
Selecting Savage will give him a scapegoat for the press conference when we lose though.
radicalraider wrote:Stickys new look left edge conceded 5 tries.. but hey we lost because of an escort call.
Did sticky not think Walsh could do what Turbo did to Frawley..
Defending Walsh is a team effort. Our cohesion on that side was poor. Hudson Young was more to blame in many respects than Frawley. Young has been leaving the line way too often and dropping off tackles, or making no contact.
Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk
It's so annoying that Young seems to be beyond reproach. He's not good enough to be in that position. He's been really poor in general play recently and his niggle is costing us every week for absolutely zero gain. Because he scores a try here and there he gets a free ride with plenty of fans who rave about how great he is each time he scores. He's the one consistent in our dysfunctional left edge all season. He should be playing in the middle as a lock and told to drop the agitator act rather than leading a defensive edge.
I have a very different opinion on Young's best position, but he has been poor of late.
I think Wighton's terrible form has contributed to Young doing things he shouldn't be doing.
His defense needs to improve though, middle, edge or wherever.
Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk
Yup. It's not even just decision making, often his contact is also poor. What position do you think he's best suited to? I just like the middle as it takes the decision making out of defence and hopefully his effective tackle % improves as a result. It also stops him getting the ball in space which is when he tends to stop, pirouette and lose all the momentum our attack has built up.
I've always liked him as a second rower, so I'm probably biased, but his ball playing ability and mobility suits that role and he's certainly no averse to running a good outside-in line when he is set up to do so. I appreciate most people decided he was a middle very early on, but IMO everything about his game says middle. He's not a distributor or a physically dominant build. I honestly don't get it.
What I will say though, is that I absolutely agree that his contact in defence needs to improve irrespective of where he defends. He can't continue to drop of 2-3 head on tackles a game. His decision making on the edge also needs to improve, but that will come with a more settled edge.
In attack he creates as well as just about any other second rower, but Wighton has done him ZERO favours this season. Huddo can be a weapon in attack, but our halves have almost completely neutralised that impact. It's a miracle he made Origin, and a credit to him.
4 penalties
6 missed tackles and
1 error
5 runs for 74m (most of the metres came from that one run so you could argue the runs would be sub 10m per run)
And I have to say, that was one of his better games last night.
The third penalty was for an apparent strip where the Broncos player just lost the ball and the fourth was that ridiculous shepherding/interference call on Cobbo.
He got dudded twice.
The missed tackles were poor and the dropped ball was a very good tackle, but also very unfortunate for us at the time.
The frustration is not whether Hudson Young impeded Cobbo or not. The frustration is that what Hudson did happens a dozen times per game without penalty. Then out of the blue, the touch judge and the bunker decide to enforce a penalty at a game defining moment - probably for the first time in a dozen rounds of football.
Likewise, Rapana deservedly gets sin binned. Meanwhile Staggs gets put on report for a deliberate elbow to the head without being sin binned.
It is the random application of rules and penalties that is what aggravates people and there were many examples of it this week. I went to the game with a Broncos supporter and he was embarrassed about the refereeing decisions.
Who would've thought, a media outlet willing to call it like they see it instead of the embarrassing bias we see from Fox/Triple M media.
I nearly ripped the radio out from my car, the day Anthony Maroon made the slightest of comments that Ricky deserved some pressure on his coaching position and every other commentator just launched into Maroon like a pack of dogs. Kent and Hooper probably.
Looking at the explanation I don't have a major issue with it, he's taken his eyes off the ball, onto cobbo, changed his movements to factor cobbo then looked at the ball again.
If he's just backpedalled into the ball we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Scared Hitless wrote: ↑August 27, 2023, 5:02 pm
And to illustrate the point most of us are making, our young, exciting NSW Cup side flogged the top of the table Bears today. And did it away from home.
Hard to believe none of them can crack first grade.
Sent from my SM-F926B using Tapatalk
Hola, Mariota, mooney, trev, Levi, strange, frawley, HSS, Savage, Schneider, Schiller, hoppa are all reserve graders who got an opportunity this year. Mooney had 1 good game, hoppa has been ok at best, Mariota has failed to make any impact and they have been our best from reserves. Hard to make much of a case with what we have seen from them so far.
-TW- wrote:Looking at the explanation I don't have a major issue with it, he's taken his eyes off the ball, onto cobbo, changed his movements to factor cobbo then looked at the ball again.
If he's just backpedalled into the ball we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The major issue is it isn't consistent
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Pretty much Timmy, but you don't believe it's a conspiracy hey?
What Canberra Raiders coach Ricky Stuart was trying to say after Broncos loss, but couldn't
Ricky Stuart has made an art out of walking a fine line at his press conferences. It's a requirement after being fined more than $120,000 over more than 20 years in the hot seat.
The game-defining penalty against Hudson Young was at the front of his mind. Yes, Young made contact with Selwyn Cobbo. And yes, the Raider ran across his run, but was it worth a penalty? What about Jordan Rapana being sent to the sin bin for an attempted trip? Definitely a penalty, but a sin bin?
The well-worn conspiracy theory in Canberra is the Raiders are considered persona non grata by the NRL, fuelled by reports a league official told the club in 2016 it would be easier if the Green Machine "withered on the vine".
