Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Positives from last night

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by player 1 View Post

    Not only were Storm's play the balls lightning fast (ref was insisting we release immediately on every tackle), more often than not they stole an extra 5 or 10 metres before playing it. As a result we were constantly back pedalling.

    Interesting Robbo in the presser referred to Storm not giving away any restarts in the second half. He knew as we all do they should have He also referred to Radley's sin bin for a "knocked out player" who was back on the field the moment Radley was marched. Storm are not only a strong side but experts at bending the rules, including the forearm strip on Hutch after his tackle had been completed - you're not permitted to land a forearm on the body of a player after they're tackled, so going for the ball is clearly a strip. Storm do this often and refs are not smart enough to pick it up.

    Don't get me wrong, Storm were better side but they are very good at testing out a ref for what they can get away with - and last night that was plenty with the offsides and ruck slow downs. Like most of his colleagues Adam Gee let the crowd and Bellamy's tactics get the better of him. He was not up to it.

    3 tries to 1 people. Put the razor blades away. They did us proud.
    Everything spot on except the ref is up to it and smart enough to know what they are doing. Proud of the boys they didnt lie down. Unlike melbourne. Munster.
    "I don't think anything I've ever done is wrong" - Homer J Simpson

    Comment


    • #32
      When you are low on troops and inexperienced, discipline is crucial. We have never been a disciplined side, and that has been highlighted by yesterday’s game. Discipline is now more important than ever for us. If we can clean up our errors/penalties we will compete in most games
      https://www.roosters.com.au/news/202...hallenge-2003/

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Blue Suede Schubert View Post

        It's quite simple rt. In my view, the defense was pretty good for the most part. The game could have been over by half time.
        But it wasn’t so how was it easy? Surely if it was easy, Melb would have put on 50 right? Why would they not take the easy path and only settle for 20?
        Drink some hand sanitizer and inject some disinfectant. Problem solved!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Rooster1908 View Post

          Why would Jmoz have been given a try , it was a knock on .
          I have just seen a situation on the South’s Tigers game where Graham and Nofoaluma go up for a bomb. The ref awards a knock on against the Tigers. The Tigers challenge the Knock on. The video ref Peranara says that Graham knocked it back which hit Nofoaluma who then knocked it back and then Graham gains possession. There was no knock on. I have seen this decision made often.

          JMoz at no stage knocked it forward but it slipped down the Storm players back. JMoz hand was always over the ball with his palm of his hand facing our end. If they applied a decision where JMoz knocked it back because it never really went forward, then it could have been a try.

          Comment


          • #35
            Agree, the difference though is Roosters weren’t playing.

            Comment


            • #36
              The positives are that we are going to be very good when Keary comes back and plays with Sam walker

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ROC181 View Post

                I have just seen a situation on the South’s Tigers game where Graham and Nofoaluma go up for a bomb. The ref awards a knock on against the Tigers. The Tigers challenge the Knock on. The video ref Peranara says that Graham knocked it back which hit Nofoaluma who then knocked it back and then Graham gains possession. There was no knock on. I have seen this decision made often.

                JMoz at no stage knocked it forward but it slipped down the Storm players back. JMoz hand was always over the ball with his palm of his hand facing our end. If they applied a decision where JMoz knocked it back because it never really went forward, then it could have been a try.
                Graham knocked that ball on with his forearm a split second before he landed on the ball.
                Drink some hand sanitizer and inject some disinfectant. Problem solved!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rented tracksuit View Post
                  Graham knocked that ball on with his forearm a split second before he landed on the ball.
                  Yeah I know but it was a situation where I knew the ball was going to go back to south’s no matter what. Other refs would have given a knock on by south’s. I have been a bit confused about the knock on rule when it hits an opposition player. Even when it goes back I have often seen the refs award a knock on because it touches an opposition player, but like I said before, they also award it a knock back sometimes so as usual it’s inconsistent.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ROC181 View Post

                    Yeah I know but it was a situation where I knew the ball was going to go back to south’s no matter what. Other refs would have given a knock on by south’s. I have been a bit confused about the knock on rule when it hits an opposition player. Even when it goes back I have often seen the refs award a knock on because it touches an opposition player, but like I said before, they also award it a knock back sometimes so as usual it’s inconsistent.
                    Agreed. It’s such a messy rule through interpretation and as such never consistent but it sure does make it interesting and at times frustrating and amusing.
                    Like you said though, it was never going to go against souffs, especially considering the usual leg up was on to ensure they didn’t lose to a lowly ranked side.
                    Drink some hand sanitizer and inject some disinfectant. Problem solved!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The defence in the first half was Bondi wall like. The effort and attitude was also spot on. The team is just lacking experience in the key spine positions. And just remember we did all that without Jared who played only 12 minutes and Tauks didn’t play after the 28th minute.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by rented tracksuit View Post

                        You can dribble all you want.

                        I just jizzed!
                        lol I’ll pay that

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Down on troops an the troops that come back will be starting from the bench at first i think its time to move players around an bring suallii in

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by rented tracksuit View Post

                            But it wasn’t so how was it easy? Surely if it was easy, Melb would have put on 50 right? Why would they not take the easy path and only settle for 20?
                            With all due respect rt, I made my point clearly and concisely. If the defense wasn't as good as it was for the most part the score could have been quite ugly. So that is a positive from my point of view.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ROC181 View Post

                              Yeah I know but it was a situation where I knew the ball was going to go back to south’s no matter what. Other refs would have given a knock on by south’s. I have been a bit confused about the knock on rule when it hits an opposition player. Even when it goes back I have often seen the refs award a knock on because it touches an opposition player, but like I said before, they also award it a knock back sometimes so as usual it’s inconsistent.
                              Quite simply, half the time they NFI. Because it is far away or they're at the wrong angle or .... the safest thing to do in their mind is to say knock on. All teams cop these. It was the same with 2 refs as well.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Blue Suede Schubert View Post

                                With all due respect rt, I made my point clearly and concisely. If the defense wasn't as good as it was for the most part the score could have been quite ugly. So that is a positive from my point of view.
                                No issue with you dude. You seem very courteous and respectful which I admire.

                                My my point was simply to ask if they could have scored 50 easily as you suggested, why didn’t they? Seems to me like it wasnt easy for them and that’s thanks to our defence.
                                Last edited by rented tracksuit; 04-18-2021, 06:40 PM.
                                Drink some hand sanitizer and inject some disinfectant. Problem solved!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X