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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
I'm just gonna say it
Collapse
X
-
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
- 2 likes
Comment
-
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!
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.
- 1 like
Comment
-
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.
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.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rooster89 View PostIt created an instruction. Whether a defending player was impeded or not doesn't have an affect on the rule.
That was given. But last night's wasn't.
The inconsistency is diabolical.
- 2 likes
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tommy Smith View PostInterestingly 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.
- 1 like
Comment
-
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.
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
-
Originally posted by Tommy Smith View PostAnd the difference to Teddy's?
Zero. Or more like it was much worse.
CON. SIST. EN. CY.
- 3 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tommy Smith View PostAnd the difference to Teddy's?
Zero. Or more like it was much worse.
CON. SIST. EN. CY."The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Thomas Jefferson
- 1 like
Comment
Comment