Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I'm just gonna say it

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    He was trying way too hard last night and confused the attacking play so many times. Looked rushed in all those moved so I say leave it to the others and let him do what he is good at.
    Exonerate the West Memphis Three - www.wm3.org

    Comment


    • #17
      I bet opposition teams would like him staying out of the way too. I doesn't always look good but it's fairly effective. He get plenty of trys out of nothing

      Comment


      • #18
        Yep, he’s trying too hard to do it all. Playing a bit like when he was at the Tigpies.

        It can work to create confusion for defences but it also confuses the attack. Such as the correctly called shepherd try. Two Warriors players were denied an opportunity to tackle him and James used to his advantage. Penalty Warriors, no try.
        ..it’ll be interesting to see

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Snapn1 View Post

          Problems are is too young hookers and too young halves so Teddy has to lift!

          I LOVE IT!!

          when verills, Keighran , collins and Boyd come back Teddy will probably decrease multi role's and be more electric with more energy concentrating on fullback meaning more tackle breaks more try/try assisting etc!
          Teddy is going to be super fit if he isn't fit already playing multiple role's!
          At the back end teams wont know our game plans because we will be able to switch it up or down to close out games!
          God I love your enthusiasm.
          I like your post, its true what you say. I worry about injuries too much but your posts help swing me back to thinking the Chooks are still in this they can still do amazing things without Keary.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cockadoodledoo View Post

            The obstruction was all on Freddy Lussick’s poor game awareness. He stood in the defensive line, like a statue with his hands in the air. All he had to do was walk or jog through the line and there would be no possible obstruction.
            I agree about Freddys positioning and it happened a set or two before that and Cummins didn't have a problem. I remember the days when players used to be caught in an obstruction situation in the 80's and they would put their hands up and the ref would let it go. I'm not sure if that works anymore but Freddy was doing it. I actually think Cummins would have given the try and the decision would have stood last year because he was using common sense and saw that no Warriors were anywhere near to be obstructed but the pedantic bunker going by the letter of the law don't have the ability to think and all they see is a player running behind their own team mate, penalty! It was rubbish but it was the rule...

            But as far as Tedesco goes, he should have known he ran behind a team mate and either pass before doing it or just submit to a tackle. It happened against the Tigers and got penalised and if it happens against the Storm or panfers and it costs us the game, we wont be happy.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Rooster89 View Post
              It created an instruction. Whether a defending player was impeded or not doesn't have an affect on the rule.
              Interestingly that interpretation was completely thrown out of the window for Penrith's first try in the GF, where the ball carrier ran behind his own teammate which ACTUALLY did cause an obstruction and proceeded to kick into the corner for a try.

              That was given. But last night's wasn't.

              The inconsistency is diabolical.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ROC181 View Post

                I agree about Freddys positioning and it happened a set or two before that and Cummins didn't have a problem. I remember the days when players used to be caught in an obstruction situation in the 80's and they would put their hands up and the ref would let it go. I'm not sure if that works anymore but Freddy was doing it. I actually think Cummins would have given the try and the decision would have stood last year because he was using common sense and saw that no Warriors were anywhere near to be obstructed but the pedantic bunker going by the letter of the law don't have the ability to think and all they see is a player running behind their own team mate, penalty! It was rubbish but it was the rule...

                But as far as Tedesco goes, he should have known he ran behind a team mate and either pass before doing it or just submit to a tackle. It happened against the Tigers and got penalised and if it happens against the Storm or panfers and it costs us the game, we wont be happy.
                These tries from decoy runners nowadays would not have been allowed back in the 80's either.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Tommy Smith View Post
                  Interestingly that interpretation was completely thrown out of the window for Penrith's first try in the GF, where the ball carrier ran behind his own teammate which ACTUALLY did cause an obstruction and proceeded to kick into the corner for a try.

                  That was given. But last night's wasn't.

                  The inconsistency is diabolical.
                  Moses ran behind three players in one of Parra's tries tonight. Unbelievable none of those were considered impeding the defence.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by BUDDY View Post

                    Moses ran behind three players in one of Parra's tries tonight. Unbelievable none of those were considered impeding the defence.
                    And the difference to Teddy's?

                    Zero. Or more like it was much worse.

                    CON. SIST. EN. CY.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ROC181 View Post

                      I agree about Freddys positioning and it happened a set or two before that and Cummins didn't have a problem. I remember the days when players used to be caught in an obstruction situation in the 80's and they would put their hands up and the ref would let it go. I'm not sure if that works anymore but Freddy was doing it. I actually think Cummins would have given the try and the decision would have stood last year because he was using common sense and saw that no Warriors were anywhere near to be obstructed but the pedantic bunker going by the letter of the law don't have the ability to think and all they see is a player running behind their own team mate, penalty! It was rubbish but it was the rule...

                      But as far as Tedesco goes, he should have known he ran behind a team mate and either pass before doing it or just submit to a tackle. It happened against the Tigers and got penalised and if it happens against the Storm or panfers and it costs us the game, we wont be happy.
                      I still think it was a try as in my mind the Warriors players was not trying to tackle Tedesco as if he was he would have run into the back of Lussick - Momentarily he stood behind Lussick but Tedesco was going across the field and that Warriors player along with the ones outside were sliding in defence - the outside defenders were the ones who missed Crichton when he went through to score.

                      When I watch those decoy tries I wonder how they can be awarded at times - They must be thinking the defender should be tackling the player with the ball but if they see someone running they most likely are anticipating they will be passed the ball but alas they are not and bunker rules defensive error and outside shoulder so a try.

                      The defender(s) have no choice as they don't know it's a decoy runner and if this decoy is actually passed the ball and scores the coach will be asking what they were doing - oh I thought that player was a decoy and the other player would be passed the ball.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tommy Smith View Post
                        And the difference to Teddy's?

                        Zero. Or more like it was much worse.

                        CON. SIST. EN. CY.
                        Anasta made a comment as to that inconsistency so I can see Annersley coming out tomorrow explaining that the Moses try should have been disallowed and from next week every player that runs behind an own player even if it’s not in the same postcode, will be penalised. Then the next week we’ll have Gus and Johns whinging about that and the following week we will be back to normal.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          If 6 doesn’t like it it can only mean one thing. Keep doing exactly what you’re doing teddy

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            i have no problem , it been a no try. good old fashioned shepherd. teddy knew it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Tommy Smith View Post
                              And the difference to Teddy's?

                              Zero. Or more like it was much worse.

                              CON. SIST. EN. CY.
                              Thanks to others here that pointed out the inconsistency in the disallowing of Angus' try and the allowing of parra's first try in their game today against the tigers. Roosters were denied a fair try by the same bunker that saw nothing amiss with mitchell moses running behind his own players.
                              "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

                              Thomas Jefferson

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Can anyone let me know how there can be an obstruction when the defence isn’t impeded in making a tackle ?
                                That just doesn’t make sense to me.
                                I’ve watched football for plenty of years, but then again, I might not be up to date with any recent rule changes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X