Jake Friend - gives away too many penalties

[Waylander]

I want to see Nafe get a good run with the side, I still think he can develop into a consistent weapon.

People are worried about Jake getting dominated when he defends, and you want to replace Grumpy with Dopey. Seluini is smaller than Jake and has a worse tackling technique. If he played the Souths game instead of Jake, we would have 50 put on us.

Yes he adds great spark running out of dummy half, but that's the sum total of his contribution. It's a great thing to have off the bench, but he's just not a starting hooker. He wouldn't even of registered as a speed bump to the Souths pack.

[elo]

I am not worried about Jake being dominated when defending, I am worried about him playing too many minutes and becoming fatigued which leads to him becoming very sloppy.

I would prefer something around 50 mins of Jake and 30 minutes of Seluini each week, Mortimer should be playing in the halves for Newtown.

[Guest]

Give Morts a run at hooker at the 20 min mark in each half and I reckon he'd be a revelation and Jake would benefit from the reduced workload. Morts is football smarter than Friend and Seluini.

And that's the only change I would make to this weeks side.

Chook.

[roosterproud]

Another constructive comment

so sorry dud. but he gave away 2 penalities(one wasnt a strip on replay). so a thread should be started in regards to it. hey justified i guess....and jwh plays with his hair too much on the field during a game to

[roosterproud]

Give Morts a run at hooker at the 20 min mark in each half and I reckon he'd be a revelation and Jake would benefit from the reduced workload. Morts is football smarter than Friend and Seluini.

And that's the only change I would make to this weeks side.

Chook.

i like sel alot and i personally rate him a better attacker than both and it seems he is a bit week in the defencive line, but morts is better some times in defence but isnt as quick and evaisive as sel, and neither are as good as jake in defence and he gets predictable from dummy.

can we blend the 3 into 1

[chook 56]

Give Morts a run at hooker at the 20 min mark in each half and I reckon he'd be a revelation and Jake would benefit from the reduced workload. Morts is football smarter than Friend and Seluini.

And that's the only change I would make to this weeks side.

Chook.

+1
I know a lot here aren't a fan of Morts but I'm different on this.

[bondi paul]

Give Morts a run at hooker at the 20 min mark in each half and I reckon he'd be a revelation and Jake would benefit from the reduced workload. Morts is football smarter than Friend and Seluini.

And that's the only change I would make to this weeks side.

Chook.

what about pearce to hooker and dummy half. he aint shy of tackling.then have nafe or mortimer as half.i agree with you chook that jake would benefit from a reduced workload.

[Guest]

so sorry dud. but he gave away 2 penalities(one wasnt a strip on replay). so a thread should be started in regards to it. hey justified i guess....and jwh plays with his hair too much on the field during a game to

Yes the title of the thread could be a little harsh, but the fact is Friend is the third most penalised player in 2012 and the refs are targeting him around the ruck. As you pointed out that strip was given to Crocker because the ref assumed Friend had been guilty of stripping the ball.

We an all sit here pretend his discipline is not an issue or we can pointed out and help him acknowledge fans obervation and improve.

[roostwin]

+1
I know a lot here aren't a fan of Morts but I'm different on this.

I would like to see Morts get a decent chance so we can judge his performance.

[player 1]

As you pointed out that strip was given to Crocker because the ref assumed Friend had been guilty of stripping the ball.

Yes, Bill Harrigan's team "tip sheets". The problem is we still have a bunch of referees who were indoctrinated by Hollywood's weekly tutorials about how the roosters cheat in the rucks. We should have got a new, unbiased group of referees along with Boss Anderson.

What's wrong with refereeing both sides fairly, without prejudice or preconceived ideas about which player or team is more likely to infringe, and simply adjudicate the game as it happens? Instead of "round up the usual suspects".

A lot of you guys go on about our "discipline", giving away 6 penalties in 60 minutes, while missing the real reason we couldn't keep up with Souffs (who already were a strong side that would have been a challenge anyway) - we only received 1 penalty in 60 minutes.

This has been going on for a decade or so, so no, it doesn't "even out over time".

So yes, we need to be extra perfect not to give away penalties to have a chance against good sides (as an example, to avoid being penalised for that "strip" that really was Crocker throwing the ball and milking, Jake would simply have had to not make the tackle - is that a competitive option?)

But how do we get referees to see more than zero or one or two infringements by our opponents over 60-80 minutes? The answer, as you all know, is that has nothing to do with our discipline, and there is simply nothing we can do about it.

[Guest]

Yes, Bill Harrigan's team "tip sheets". The problem is we still have a bunch of referees who were indoctrinated by Hollywood's weekly tutorials about how the roosters cheat in the rucks. We should have got a new, unbiased group of referees along with Boss Anderson.

What's wrong with refereeing both sides fairly, without prejudice or preconceived ideas about which player or team is more likely to infringe, and simply adjudicate the game as it happens? Instead of "round up the usual suspects".

A lot of you guys go on about our "discipline", giving away 6 penalties in 60 minutes, while missing the real reason we couldn't keep up with Souffs (who already were a strong side that would have been a challenge anyway) - we only received 1 penalty in 60 minutes.

This has been going on for a decade or so, so no, it doesn't "even out over time".

So yes, we need to be extra perfect not to give away penalties to have a chance against good sides (as an example, to avoid being penalised for that "strip" that really was Crocker throwing the ball and milking, Jake would simply have had to not make the tackle - is that a competitive option?)

But how do we get referees to see more than zero or one or two infringements by our opponents over 60-80 minutes? The answer, as you all know, is that has nothing to do with our discipline, and there is simply nothing we can do about it.

Fair point.

[Guest]

The boys need to fire up more after a penalty and use it as motivation,go into each game that if we cop a penalty the next set of tackles we will pack extra punch into them and make them hurt,play harder for each other,hold them out and the confidence will grow,too many times they drop their heads,and look like their feeling sorry for themselves,it's a war out there,it's time they started fighting back.

[Waylander]

You don't win the penalty count if your not winning the ruck. Therein lies our problem.

[Guest]

You don't win the penalty count if your not winning the ruck. Therein lies our problem.

Yep we got dominated in the ruck by souths and those ruck penalties were result of panic/trying too hard to get ascendancy back IMO. No surprise when JWH and Moa were on we weren't seeing this happen. We fix our second forward rotation I think it changes the penalty situation a lot. Here is hoping FPN/LOD/Tasi/Kennedy/Evans can come to task.

[bondi-boy]

If you have the sports ears at the ground and listen to the referee's, the moment Jake makes a tackle you hear them calling his name to move. Its ridiculous.

He's and Jared's are the only names being called instantly.

Persecution?
Lopsided refereeing?
Biased refereeing?