What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

'14 // R3 // Fri // Broncos 26-30 Roosters // Suncorp

Round 3: Broncos v Roosters


  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

captainwarrior

Juniors
Messages
930
Best game of the season so far without a doubt. I know the Roosters were below their best, and I know it's only round three, but the Broncos are a serious side and will be very hard to beat for majority of the year (bar Origin season). They were very unlucky tonight, and in the end it came down to goal kicking, and the last play of the game. I'm sure Broncos supporters won't be disheartened by their efforts tonight, they, like the Panthers last week, stood up to one of the best sides in the comp, and proved that winning their first two games of the season was no fluke.
 

Kiwi

First Grade
Messages
9,471
Yeah I am certainly feeling pretty good after that game despite the loss. People have to take us seriously now. I know sBW wasn't playing, but neither was McGuire, Hannant, Kahu and Hodges. Good times ahead, great to see Oates back as well.
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,475
What are you talking about?

They stopped the game when he was knocked out, they had every opportunity to take him off. They didn't and it was this error in judgement that led to Thaiday making a clearly dazed tackle that led to him staying down again.

He should never of been making that second tackle to begin with.

Why was play stopped for the first one and not the second? It wasn't a dazed tackle, he caught a knock to the head and was clearly knocked out to the point the player playing the ball shoved him off. Whether he should have still been on the field or not is irrelevant, he's still entitled to a duty of care by the officials who should have stopped the play.
 

no name

Referee
Messages
20,163
Why was play stopped for the first one and not the second? It wasn't a dazed tackle, he caught a knock to the head and was clearly knocked out to the point the player playing the ball shoved him off. Whether he should have still been on the field or not is irrelevant, he's still entitled to a duty of care by the officials who should have stopped the play.

Because he was directly in play on the first incident.
In the second one he ended up behind the play, and such play wasn't stopped.
Unless a trainer calls for a stoppage if play, if the player isn't in danger of being affected by the play, it will be bad luck to the defending side.
 

Big Pete

Referee
Messages
29,129
Which is fair enough too because otherwise you'd have players going down all the time in pressure situations.

Silly to keep him on, but hindsight is 20/20 as they say.
 

Kiwi

First Grade
Messages
9,471
Which is fair enough too because otherwise you'd have players going down all the time in pressure situations.

Silly to keep him on, but hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

either that or give away pro fouls constantly knowing the refs think the sin bin got abolished with the shoulder charge :sarcasm:
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,475
Because he was directly in play on the first incident.
In the second one he ended up behind the play, and such play wasn't stopped.
Unless a trainer calls for a stoppage if play, if the player isn't in danger of being affected by the play, it will be bad luck to the defending side.

He was directly in the play, he was caught unconscious in the play the ball wrapped around a player playing the ball, it was the exact same circumstances except the roosters were attacking the broncos line with a minute to go. The refs were required to stop the play.
 

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,475
Which is fair enough too because otherwise you'd have players going down all the time in pressure situations.

Silly to keep him on, but hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

They stopped play to repair a pot hole 3m in goal, presumably for player welfare reasons.
 

Big Pete

Referee
Messages
29,129
They stopped play to repair a pot hole 3m in goal, presumably for player welfare reasons.

Nah play was already stopped for the goal line drop out remember?

Bit annoying because it gave the Chooks defence a nice breather but these things happen.
 

no name

Referee
Messages
20,163
He was directly in the play, he was caught unconscious in the play the ball wrapped around a player playing the ball, it was the exact same circumstances except the roosters were attacking the broncos line with a minute to go. The refs were required to stop the play.

No he wasn't, he was a couple of metres behind the play by the time the Roosters played the ball.

If anything, Broncos fans should be a bit peeved about Aubusson making contact with Hoffman's outside shoulder on SKD's try, not the fact that Thaiday was knocked out in back play.
 
Last edited:

insert.pause

First Grade
Messages
6,475
Nah play was already stopped for the goal line drop out remember?

Bit annoying because it gave the Chooks defence a nice breather but these things happen.

Semantics, point is the drop out was delayed more than a minute for a pot hole while the roosters were supposed to be under pressure with only 30sec to collect themselves.
 
Top