Gould - "Greenberg is a farce".

[adamkungl]

Funnily enough despite being the worst disciplined team of the last decade, Roosters seem to be going through this crackdown basically unscatched. Or am I imagining things?

 

[TheFrog]

Broncos 75.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

Broncos 75.

We don't have Maloney in our side

 

[Cherry_poppins]

Who the f**k names them self cherry poppins? Are you 13?

STFU I bleed monthly

 

[franklin2323]

So what are these 'so minor' penalties? All teams consistently deliberately give away penalties on their own line. Always offside, laying all over the ruck, hands in the play-the-ball etc. Are we supposed to just stop penalising blatant breaches of the rules?

Sometimes the penalties aren't of a benefit to the side attacking. I have seen many times the attacking team have a 4 on 2 overlap. Play the ball to use that and they comeback for something that had no outcome on the play.

Also look at the run of penalties it is like they are evening up sometimes. Sharks were 5-0 penalty count in the 1st 25 of the 2nd half last week. Surely they had times off side during that

 

[TheFrog]

We don't have Maloney in our side

Raiders don't either.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

World: 'Gould is a farc wit'

 

[Stormwarrior82]

I watched nrl360 and Flanagan was on there. They brought up the fact penalties can come in clumps. His answer was we now train for that! Now I’m not having a dig at the sharks because I’m sure every club coach is thinking like that. But that’s the problem... they aren’t actually angry at the player for giving the penalty away. They just train for it as though it’s out of their hands.

Maybe a club fine for teams that give a certain number of penalties away in a game?

As for Gus having a whinge... again and again.... he needs to be told to pull his head in or fined for something or at least his bias agenda made public for all to see.

 

[Springs09]

Sometimes the penalties aren't of a benefit to the side attacking. I have seen many times the attacking team have a 4 on 2 overlap. Play the ball to use that and they comeback for something that had no outcome on the play.

Also look at the run of penalties it is like they are evening up sometimes. Sharks were 5-0 penalty count in the 1st 25 of the 2nd half last week. Surely they had times off side during that

Oh right so it's just assumption then is it. Surely the Sharks had to be offside! Get em onside!

The referees cannot tell the future. A penalty in front of the posts is a guaranteed 2 points. A 4 on 2 overlap means nothing. Yeah let's bring that rule into play. We'll need more refs to police it though. 'Yeah the ruck was shocking but I saw a 3-on-2 overlap on the right side so we played on, sorry you just happened to lose the ball at first receiver'.

 

[adamkungl]

Oh right so it's just assumption then is it. Surely the Sharks had to be offside! Get em onside!

The referees cannot tell the future. A penalty in front of the posts is a guaranteed 2 points. A 4 on 2 overlap means nothing. Yeah let's bring that rule into play. We'll need more refs to police it though. 'Yeah the ruck was shocking but I saw a 3-on-2 overlap on the right side so we played on, sorry you just happened to lose the ball at first receiver'.

They could blow the penalty when the play is completed.
Has the added benefit of giving no slow-down advantage to the defense.

 

[veggiepatch1959]

Here's the clip btw

Thank you. That was entertaining.

 

[Springs09]

They could blow the penalty when the play is completed.
Has the added benefit of giving no slow-down advantage to the defense.

But how far do you take the advantage? If there's players all over the ruck on tackle 2 and we play advantage until tackle 3 then we blow the penalty, we get the same situation - the attacking team could have had a 4-on-1 overlap on play 4.

An advantage rule on ruck penalties would be far too hard to police and we'd have whingers everywhere.

 

[typicalfan]

I would keep playing on until the momentum of the team is impeded by the infringement. So you penalise for the outcome rather than the indiscretion.

 

[adamkungl]

But how far do you take the advantage? If there's players all over the ruck on tackle 2 and we play advantage until tackle 3 then we blow the penalty, we get the same situation - the attacking team could have had a 4-on-1 overlap on play 4.

An advantage rule on ruck penalties would be far too hard to police and we'd have whingers everywhere.

Just finish the current play.

 

[Perth Red]

I see Greenberg has caved in to the Gus pressure again and fronted up the media today. As CEO surely he has football managers etc responsible for the business, shouldn't be his opinion that alters rules. Then again we know its just a knee jerk response to the media pressure again by Toddles.
Now we have more media winkers saying Greenberg should overrule the judiciary as well!

https://www.2gb.com/rays-message-for-todd-greenberg-pick-up-the-phone-and-say-you-got-it-wrong/

 

[franklin2323]

They could blow the penalty when the play is completed.
Has the added benefit of giving no slow-down advantage to the defense.

This. Time and a place sometimes the defence wants a penalty

 

[franklin2323]

I would keep playing on until the momentum of the team is impeded by the infringement. So you penalise for the outcome rather than the indiscretion.

The left winger being offside shouldn't stop a backline movement on the right

 

[franklin2323]

Oh right so it's just assumption then is it. Surely the Sharks had to be offside! Get em onside!

The referees cannot tell the future. A penalty in front of the posts is a guaranteed 2 points. A 4 on 2 overlap means nothing. Yeah let's bring that rule into play. We'll need more refs to police it though. 'Yeah the ruck was shocking but I saw a 3-on-2 overlap on the right side so we played on, sorry you just happened to lose the ball at first receiver'.

Edrick Lee got a penalty for something in that game. Then the pocket ref said play it straight next time. Just blow the penalty. How many times do you see the ref signalling players to get back? Just blow it. They decide when to blow it.

What next game on. A team will make a break the defending team doesn't get back on a wing. Called penalty straight away just let it go and IF the offside guys come involved call it. Less chance they can get their breath back that way

 

[TheFrog]

But how far do you take the advantage? If there's players all over the ruck on tackle 2 and we play advantage until tackle 3 then we blow the penalty, we get the same situation - the attacking team could have had a 4-on-1 overlap on play 4.

Have a signal similar to 6-again to restart the tackle count where the defending team commits an offence inside their own 20. That is the penalty. Two or three of them in a row, and its off to the bin (this is not optional), and the non-offending side can then kick for goal if they wish. This way the bin warning is reset whenever play breaks down, so a player can't be binned 10 minutes after a warning is given.

Also, sin-binned players who do not leave the field of play within a reasonable time (with a shot clock operating) either receive further sin bin time, or are cited by the MRC and fined.

Obviously this would need to be trialled in a game with no bearing, and brought in at the start of the season, not half way through.

 

[King hit]

I watched nrl360 and Flanagan was on there. They brought up the fact penalties can come in clumps. His answer was we now train for that! Now I’m not having a dig at the sharks because I’m sure every club coach is thinking like that. But that’s the problem... they aren’t actually angry at the player for giving the penalty away. They just train for it as though it’s out of their hands.

Maybe a club fine for teams that give a certain number of penalties away in a game?

As for Gus having a whinge... again and again.... he needs to be told to pull his head in or fined for something or at least his bias agenda made public for all to see.

This is the thing

I respect Gould’s knowledge of the game and achievements in coaching but his agenda driven rants piss me off to no end as well. He needs to strictly told as a commentator his job is to educate and inform the public not go on self serving agenda fuelled rants. Leave that to his smh column