Bgoodorgoodatit
Juniors
- Messages
- 1,492
Round 13
Roosters v Broncos
Penalty Count 4-8
Hand on the ball in the ruck 3rd tackle started the following set on the Broncs 30m line but dropped the ball on the 2nd tackle. good penalty that we didn't take advantage of. The set directly after Cordner gets penalized on the first tackle for holding down in the ruck that was so innocuous it could be called on every tackle in the game. Broncos go the length of the field and almost score leading to the push in the back penalty below
Push in the back while chasing a kick. No real benefit for us here. First tackle penalty
Holding Down in the ruck. Attacking their line after forcing a drop out. Third tackle but minimal benefit in the sense of territory gained. One of the Penalties that teams intentionally give away to set their defense. didn't work here as we scored on the following set.
Forcing Fergo into goal when already held. I Guess the benefit here is debatable if the calls goes the other way we are dropping the ball out. if you take the call on face value then the territorial benefit is minimal zero tackle penalty 20m advantage that doesn't put you on the attack.
To me this game was a good illustration of all penalties not being created equal. Two of the broncs tries came directly of what i would call subjective calls for infringements in the ruck that came late in the tackle count. and three other penalties coming out of their own end after the third tackle that they didn't convert but put them well and truly on the attack. As far as the tries the first one was a ruck infringement against Napa on the 4th tackle that honestly could have been called on 90% of the tackles in the game. Benji scored the following set. Second one was from a 3rd tackle holding down against Liu broncs go on the attack and Oates scores. Even their last try was on the back of a penalty however that was a foul play issue and not what im trying to highlight here.
The problem as i see it is subjective ruck penalties on the third tackle and after essentially guarantee the teams receiving the penalty an attacking opportunity care of the ref. Personally i would prefer to see attacking opportunities come from good defense, forcing mistakes (errors and 7 tackle sets) 40/20's and line breaks. weather or not ruck infringements should just result in the restarting of the tackle count i don't know. but our 1 bailout penalty coming out of our own end doesn't really compare to the Broncs 5 and the possible effect it can have on the result of the game.
Roosters v Broncos
Penalty Count 4-8
Hand on the ball in the ruck 3rd tackle started the following set on the Broncs 30m line but dropped the ball on the 2nd tackle. good penalty that we didn't take advantage of. The set directly after Cordner gets penalized on the first tackle for holding down in the ruck that was so innocuous it could be called on every tackle in the game. Broncos go the length of the field and almost score leading to the push in the back penalty below
Push in the back while chasing a kick. No real benefit for us here. First tackle penalty
Holding Down in the ruck. Attacking their line after forcing a drop out. Third tackle but minimal benefit in the sense of territory gained. One of the Penalties that teams intentionally give away to set their defense. didn't work here as we scored on the following set.
Forcing Fergo into goal when already held. I Guess the benefit here is debatable if the calls goes the other way we are dropping the ball out. if you take the call on face value then the territorial benefit is minimal zero tackle penalty 20m advantage that doesn't put you on the attack.
To me this game was a good illustration of all penalties not being created equal. Two of the broncs tries came directly of what i would call subjective calls for infringements in the ruck that came late in the tackle count. and three other penalties coming out of their own end after the third tackle that they didn't convert but put them well and truly on the attack. As far as the tries the first one was a ruck infringement against Napa on the 4th tackle that honestly could have been called on 90% of the tackles in the game. Benji scored the following set. Second one was from a 3rd tackle holding down against Liu broncs go on the attack and Oates scores. Even their last try was on the back of a penalty however that was a foul play issue and not what im trying to highlight here.
The problem as i see it is subjective ruck penalties on the third tackle and after essentially guarantee the teams receiving the penalty an attacking opportunity care of the ref. Personally i would prefer to see attacking opportunities come from good defense, forcing mistakes (errors and 7 tackle sets) 40/20's and line breaks. weather or not ruck infringements should just result in the restarting of the tackle count i don't know. but our 1 bailout penalty coming out of our own end doesn't really compare to the Broncs 5 and the possible effect it can have on the result of the game.
