Just keep winning and none of it matters. If we don't make the finals from here we very much don't deserve it. We're in the box seat and running hot.Why do I get the feeling that that loss against the Roosters mid year is going to come back to bite us?
Honestly I’ll be annoyed if they make the finals over us.
Wasn't receiving a kick when he left the ground, so according to the rules he is fair play. It looked spectacular, but the alternative in the rules would be what? Anyone who jumps in the air with the ball in their hands can't be tackled?Did you lads see the non penalty call on Garrick during the Warriors game? How wasn't that a penalty?
Just keep winning and none of it matters. If we don't make the finals from here we very much don't deserve it. We're in the box seat and running hot.
I'm legitimately at peace with whatever happens from here and have just enjoyed the ride the past couple of months. I think we're in a position to get exactly what we deserve from the season one way or another. Sure beats competing for spoons.
A bit pedantic but if they make it, it probably wouldn't be at our expense. We can make it with only one more win but I think we will win at least 2/3. They need to win their last 2 most likely, at which point they'd probably replace Raiders due to their F/A and Raiders having Dogs, Broncos and Sharks left.Why do I get the feeling that that loss against the Roosters mid year is going to come back to bite us?
Honestly I’ll be annoyed if they make the finals over us.
Fairly sure the ref has latitude to rule on dangerous contact, which that certainly was. It's not a direct rule against what he did exactly but it could have been penalisedWasn't receiving a kick when he left the ground, so according to the rules he is fair play. It looked spectacular, but the alternative in the rules would be what? Anyone who jumps in the air with the ball in their hands can't be tackled?
It's a tricky one, but as it stands there's just nothing in the rulebook to cover that scenario.
Would be a ballsy call for a referee to call something purely on discretion these days. Been a long time since we saw a ref use common sense on a footy field, rather than just following whatever "interpretations" have been introduced lately. I can't remember a time when a referee has penalised a team based purely on discretion outside of citing a rule that actually exists, off the top of my head anyway.Fairly sure the ref has latitude to rule on dangerous contact, which that certainly was. It's not a direct rule against what he did exactly but it could have been penalised
Gamble going to be on the bench next year to back up Hastings you think?Looks like next year our back up no7 is going to be a premiership winning 6
Gamble going to be on the bench next year to back up Hastings you think?
It was tongue in cheek to the presumption that Cogger win the GF, mate.No way. I’d have Gamble well over Cogger. Can’t carry Crossland and Gamble both on the bench either.
If Penrith go on to win it which they probably will, wonder if Cogger will try and get out of his contract with us. I imagine there would be a few teams that would try and get him on bigger money/into their FG team if he’s a premiership winning half. Should have just kept Clune.
This makes way more sense ahhahaaIt was tongue in cheek to the presumption that Cogger win the GF, mate.
I know halves are scarce but I doubt his stocks go up that much based on his ability, which is a low ceiling imo. Which clubs would see him as a FG option in the halves? Tigers have Sezer coming, Dogs have Sexton, Raiders maybe.No way. I’d have Gamble well over Cogger. Can’t carry Crossland and Gamble both on the bench either.
If Penrith go on to win it which they probably will, wonder if Cogger will try and get out of his contract with us. I imagine there would be a few teams that would try and get him on bigger money/into their FG team if he’s a premiership winning half. Should have just kept Clune.